Boundary case: a box-stacking robot crushes a worker inspecting it, Goseong, South Korea, November 2023; police accounts of whether it mistook him for a box conflict

Changes to what this case says, with the reason. Every earlier version is kept.

• 2026-10-21: Unmapped: c-i3. Editor's classification call of 21 october 2026 (call 15, accepted from pull request #74): wording fix listed with the calls: the later account came from an unnamed police official, not a police statement.
  Show the change

  Before: C-I3 (object classification): rests on the first police account, which a later police statement contradicts; not counted

  After: C-I3 (object classification): rests on the first police account, which a police official's later account contradicts; not counted
• 2026-10-21: Sources: ap-orig: title. Editor's classification call of 21 october 2026 (call 15, accepted from pull request #74): wording fix listed with the calls: the ksat page does not describe ksat as an ap member station.
  Show the change

  Before: Associated Press (Kim Tong-hyung), 'An industrial robot crushed a worker to death at a vegetable packing plant in South Korea', 9 November 2023, as republished by KSAT, an AP member station

  After: Associated Press (Kim Tong-hyung), 'An industrial robot crushed a worker to death at a vegetable packing plant in South Korea', 9 November 2023, as republished by KSAT
• 2026-10-21: Status text. Editor's classification call of 21 october 2026 (call 15, accepted from pull request #74): the case records two police accounts that conflict on whether the robot mistook the worker for a box.
  Show the change

  Before: Confirmed as an event; mechanism per police

  After: Confirmed death; police accounts of the mechanism conflict
• 2026-10-21: Context: mandate context. Editor's classification call of 21 october 2026 (call 15, accepted from pull request #74): the worker was checking whether the robot worked properly ahead of its trial run on 8 november 2023 (police, as reported by yonhap), as the checked mandate text says.
  Show the change

  Before: production

  After: test
• 2026-10-20: Inference: value. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: the earlier wording said 'every question the register asks has an answer' and spoke of 'its missing controls', but no source says whether presence detection, a guarded zone or a lockout existed (the c-e4 note says so since 19 october), the mechanism is disputed between police accounts, and no outcome of the investigation was found. the new wording states the police description (ap-orig), the trial-run check (yonhap-kr), both police accounts and the early human-error finding (ap-orig), and what the record does not show. the interpretation was already unsigned (signed_by null); the editor must sign the new wording.
  Show the change

  Before: {"value": "A boundary case: the machine had no autonomy at all, yet every question the Register asks has an answer. It is kept because its missing controls are the ones that will matter for robots working around people at home.", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE"]}

  After: {"value": "A boundary case. Police described a simple pick-and-place machine, not an advanced robot powered by artificial intelligence, which killed a worker who was checking it before a trial run. How it happened is disputed: police first said it apparently took him for a box; a police official later said it did not, pointing to the box in the worker's hands, and police said early evidence pointed to human error. The record does not show whether presence detection, a guarded zone or a lockout existed, or how the investigation ended. The Register keeps the case because those are the controls that will matter for robots working around people at home.", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "YONHAP-KR", "AP-ORIG"]}
• 2026-10-20: Fields: recovery automated fallback. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: none of the sources (kr-police, yonhap-kr, ap-orig, ap-kr) describes the robot's safety functions, so they show that no automatic stop is reported, not that none existed; the same reasoning lowered the c-e4 control's confidence on 19 october 2026.
  Show the change

  Before: {"value": "None", "confidence": "high"}

  After: {"value": "None reported: the sources describe no automatic stop or release", "confidence": "medium"}
• 2026-10-20: Fields: action: source ids. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: the korea times report says the arm 'pushed the man's upper body down against the conveyor belt'; that he was grabbed comes from the associated press story (ap-orig): he 'was snatched and pressed against a conveyor belt by the machine's robotic arms'. wording unchanged.
  Show the change

  Before: ["KR-POLICE"]

  After: ["KR-POLICE", "AP-ORIG"]
• 2026-10-20: Fields: inputs. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: the associated press (ap-orig, ap-kr) attributes the later account to 'another police official, who did not want to be identified because he wasn't authorized to talk to reporters', not to a police statement; it says security video 'indicated' (not showed) that he moved near the robot 'with a box in his hands which likely triggered the machine's reaction', and that 'the robot's sensors are designed to identify boxes'. the case omitted that account of the trigger. yonhap's police account (yonhap-kr) is the original of the first account.
  Show the change

  Before: {"value": "The worker, a robotics-company employee in his forties, was inspecting the robot's sensor. Police first said the robot apparently identified him as a box; a later police statement to AP said it was clearly not a case of the robot confusing a person with a box, and that footage showed him near the robot holding a box", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "AP-KR", "AP-ORIG"]}

  After: {"value": "The worker, a robotics-company employee in his forties, was inspecting the robot's sensor. Police, as reported by Yonhap, first said the robot apparently identified him as a box; a police official who spoke to the Associated Press without being named said it was clearly not a case of the robot confusing a person with a box: the robot's sensors are designed to identify boxes, and security video indicated he had moved near the robot with a box in his hands, which likely triggered the machine's reaction", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "YONHAP-KR", "AP-ORIG", "AP-KR"]}
• 2026-10-20: Fields: actor. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: the cited korea times report says 'the robotic arm' but not 'sorting line'; the associated press story (ap-orig) says the machine 'was one of two pick-and-place robots used at the facility'. the 19 october review removed 'sorting' from the title for the same reason.
  Show the change

  Before: {"value": "A robotic arm on the sorting line", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE"]}

  After: {"value": "A pick-and-place robotic arm, one of two such robots at the facility", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "AP-ORIG"]}
• 2026-10-20: Context: autonomy level text. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: no source says the robot had 'no planner' or ran a 'fixed program'; the associated press story (ap-orig) quotes the head of investigations at goseong police station: 'it wasn't an advanced, artificial intelligence-powered robot, but a machine that simply picks up boxes and puts them on pallets'.
  Show the change

  Before: Automated, not autonomous: no planner, fixed program

  After: Automated, not autonomous: police called it a simple pick-and-place machine, not an advanced robot powered by artificial intelligence
• 2026-10-20: Context: mandate context text. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: yonhap, citing goseong police station (yonhap-kr), reports the worker was checking the robot ahead of its trial run on 8 november, so the robot was not shown to be in production use; the packing centre itself was operating (ap-orig: the facility 'packages bell peppers and other vegetables'). the mandate_context category (production) is left for the editor.
  Show the change

  Before: Production; worker was inspecting the robot's sensor

  After: A working packing centre; the worker was checking whether the robot worked properly ahead of its trial run on 8 November 2023 (police, as reported by Yonhap)
• 2026-10-20: Sources: kr-police: title. Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: the korea times article ends with the credit '(afp)': it is an agence france-presse report that cites yonhap, which cites police. the link still opens; it now redirects to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/society/20231108/s-korean-worker-killed-by-industrial-robot.
  Show the change

  Before: The Korea Times (citing Yonhap and police), 'S. Korean worker killed by industrial robot', 8 November 2023

  After: The Korea Times (Agence France-Presse report citing Yonhap and police), 'S. Korean worker killed by industrial robot', 8 November 2023
• 2026-10-20: Sources: ap-kr (title, date). Found in the editor's source re-check of 19-20 october 2026: the nbc news page's own byline reads 'nov. 9, 2023, 4:55 am est / source: the associated press / by the associated press', and its page data name the associated press as author (read in the page as served on 20 october 2026). the entry of 19 october 2026 that removed the associated press label said the page carries no ap credit; the page does carry one. its text is a shorter version of the ap story (it lacks the paragraph saying early evidence pointed to human error, which is why the full ap story, ap-orig, stays cited separately). the date was 8 november; the page is dated 9 november 2023.
  Show the change

  Before: {"title": "NBC News, 'Robot crushes worker to death at South Korean vegetable packing plant', November 2023 (later police statement)", "date": "2023-11-08"}

  After: {"title": "The Associated Press, as published by NBC News, 'Robot crushes worker to death at South Korean vegetable packing plant', 9 November 2023 (a shorter version of the AP story; later police statement)", "date": "2023-11-09"}
• 2026-10-19: Controls: c-e4. Found in the editor's review of 19 october 2026: neither source says whether presence detection, a guarded zone or a lockout existed, and police said early evidence pointed to human error, so a lockout may have existed and not been used; confidence lowered from high to medium.
  Show the change

  Before: {"id": "C-E4", "note": "Presence detection and safety-rated stop; Guarded work envelope during maintenance; Lockout during sensor inspection", "confidence": "high", "basis": "curated"}

  After: {"id": "C-E4", "note": "Presence detection and safety-rated stop; Guarded work envelope during maintenance; Lockout during sensor inspection (the sources do not say whether these existed)", "confidence": "medium", "basis": "curated"}
• 2026-10-19: Fields (recovery accountability, inputs). Found in the editor's review of 19 october 2026: the associated press's own story reports that police said early evidence pointed to human error rather than a problem with the machine; the nbc news version cited earlier omits it. the inputs claim (a police statement to ap) now also cites the ap story; its wording is unchanged.
  Show the change

  Before: {"Recovery accountability": {"value": "Police examined possible technical defects, safety issues and human error; police said it was not an advanced, AI-powered robot; outcome not recorded here", "source_ids": ["AP-KR"]}, "Inputs": {"source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "AP-KR"]}}

  After: {"Recovery accountability": {"value": "Police examined possible technical defects, safety issues and human error, and said early evidence pointed to human error rather than a problem with the machine; police said it was not an advanced, AI-powered robot; the investigation's outcome is not recorded here", "source_ids": ["AP-ORIG", "AP-KR"]}, "Inputs": {"source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "AP-KR", "AP-ORIG"]}}
• 2026-10-19: Title, context: actor type, fields: mandate objective. Found in the editor's review of 19 october 2026: both sources say the robot lifted boxes of bell peppers onto pallets (the conveyor is where the worker was pressed), and neither calls it a sorting robot.
  Show the change

  Before: {"title": "Boundary case: a produce-sorting robot crushes a worker inspecting it, Goseong, South Korea, November 2023; police accounts of whether it mistook him for a box conflict", "context.actor_type": "Physical: industrial robotic arm on a pepper-sorting line", "Mandate objective": {"value": "Pick boxes of produce and place them on a conveyor", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE"]}}

  After: {"title": "Boundary case: a box-stacking robot crushes a worker inspecting it, Goseong, South Korea, November 2023; police accounts of whether it mistook him for a box conflict", "context.actor_type": "Physical: industrial robotic arm stacking boxes of bell peppers onto pallets at a produce packing centre", "Mandate objective": {"value": "Pick up boxes of bell peppers and stack them on pallets", "source_ids": ["KR-POLICE", "AP-ORIG"]}}
• 2026-10-19: Sources: ap-kr (label). Found in the editor's review of 19 october 2026: the nbc news page carries no associated press credit and its text differs from the ap story, so it is no longer labelled as ap; the ap story is now cited separately (ap-orig).
  Show the change

  Before: Associated Press via NBC News, 'Robot crushes worker to death at South Korean vegetable packing plant', November 2023 (later police statement)

  After: NBC News, 'Robot crushes worker to death at South Korean vegetable packing plant', November 2023 (later police statement)
• 2026-10-16: Controls. Found in an outside review of the published record on 16 october 2026: repeated entries showed the same control twice on the page.
  Show the change

  Before: the same control listed more than once in one state

  After: one entry per control, notes combined
• 2026-10-16: Controls: c-i3. Found in an outside review of the published record on 16 october 2026: the only basis for the failed entry is contradicted later in the record.
  Show the change

  Before: failed: Object classification

  After: not counted: C-I3 (object classification): rests on the first police account, which a later police statement contradicts; not counted
• 2026-10-13: Fields and sources. A later police statement contradicts the early one.
  Show the change

  Before: title and inputs said the robot 'treated' the worker 'as a box', on the early police account only

  After: both police accounts recorded and the claim marked disputed; title changed to say the accounts conflict