# PWR-189 — Swarm coordination: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 28 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Intermediate Equipment: Common household or practice equipment — Declared Swarm coordination fixture: Audit a published pedestrian-model study and a human-crowd consensus study, asking whether simple local alignment produces safe trajectories at low and extreme density.; Setup aid for Extract agents and environment: Keep the task to published data or a harmless computer model; do not recruit or move a crowd.; Swarm coordination log: Trajectory coordination, time, error and collision risk in an authorized declared crowd model; retain Swarm coordination errors, assistance, stop and fallback.; Swarm-research extraction sheet: from “Consensus decision making in human crowds”, record participant task, local information and group outcome; from “How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters”, record the movement rules, density and collision or disaster boundary. Test whether the low-density interpretation survives the supplied extreme-density row. Neither paper is an operational crowd-control guide. Space: Room-scale practice space Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G5; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Comprehensive Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context Reconstruct the local rules, density assumptions and collision model in a pedestrian study, then compare them with a human-crowd consensus study. Stress-test the safety interpretation outside the reported density and write the evidence gate for any field proposal. This is a research audit and provides no method for controlling crowds. Target outcome: The learner builds a reproducible methods table for a crowd simulation, tests the rule outside its reported density and writes the safety gate before any field use. ### Authority and setup conditions - Obtain full methods and any model supplement or code description. - Keep the task to published data or a harmless computer model; do not recruit or move a crowd. - Start check for Swarm coordination: The question does not use “collective intelligence” as an outcome. - Top-of-sheet stop for Swarm coordination: Stop if rule details, density or collision definitions are missing. ### Required or supplied materials - Declared Swarm coordination fixture: Audit a published pedestrian-model study and a human-crowd consensus study, asking whether simple local alignment produces safe trajectories at low and extreme density. - Setup aid for Extract agents and environment: Keep the task to published data or a harmless computer model; do not recruit or move a crowd. - Swarm coordination log: Trajectory coordination, time, error and collision risk in an authorized declared crowd model; retain Swarm coordination errors, assistance, stop and fallback. - Swarm-research extraction sheet: from “Consensus decision making in human crowds”, record participant task, local information and group outcome; from “How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters”, record the movement rules, density and collision or disaster boundary. Test whether the low-density interpretation survives the supplied extreme-density row. Neither paper is an operational crowd-control guide. ## 1. Frame the claim narrowly Ask whether the named local rule changes trajectory error or collision risk in the declared crowd size, density and environment. Why: The question does not use “collective intelligence” as an outcome. Success check: The question does not use “collective intelligence” as an outcome. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Ask whether the named local rule changes trajectory error or collision risk in the declared crowd size, density and environment.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The question does not use “collective intelligence” as an outcome.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. Extract agents and environment Record number of people or simulated agents, area, obstacles, visibility, start points and goal. Why: Density can be calculated and reproduced. Success check: Density can be calculated and reproduced. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Record number of people or simulated agents, area, obstacles, visibility, start points and goal.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Density can be calculated and reproduced.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. Rebuild each local rule Write what information each agent senses, update order, speed limit, separation rule and stopping condition. Why: Another analyst could implement the rule without guessing. Success check: Another analyst could implement the rule without guessing. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Write what information each agent senses, update order, speed limit, separation rule and stopping condition.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Another analyst could implement the rule without guessing.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. Map informed members Record who knows the destination, how information spreads and whether consent or authority is modelled. Why: Informed status and influence are distinct from simple proximity. Success check: Informed status and influence are distinct from simple proximity. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Record who knows the destination, how information spreads and whether consent or authority is modelled.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Informed status and influence are distinct from simple proximity.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. Measure trajectories and collisions Extract path length, time, spacing, contacts, near misses and any severity rule. Why: Coordination gains cannot hide rising collision risk. Success check: Coordination gains cannot hide rising collision risk. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Extract path length, time, spacing, contacts, near misses and any severity rule.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “Coordination gains cannot hide rising collision risk.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. Stress the density boundary Compare the studied density with a documented extreme-density condition and note turbulence or model failure. Why: The safe-looking claim weakens when density moves outside the tested range. Success check: The safe-looking claim weakens when density moves outside the tested range. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Compare the studied density with a documented extreme-density condition and note turbulence or model failure.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The safe-looking claim weakens when density moves outside the tested range.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 7. Test alternative mechanisms Consider shared visual cues, leader following, boundary effects and simulation assumptions instead of emergence alone. Why: At least one alternative remains viable if controls are absent. Success check: At least one alternative remains viable if controls are absent. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Consider shared visual cues, leader following, boundary effects and simulation assumptions instead of emergence alone.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “At least one alternative remains viable if controls are absent.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 8. Write the ethical gate Require specialist crowd-safety review, validated models, venue data, consent and emergency procedures before any real-world test. Why: The output is a research decision, not instructions for moving a crowd. Success check: The output is a research decision, not instructions for moving a crowd. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Require specialist crowd-safety review, validated models, venue data, consent and emergency procedures before any real-world test.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “The output is a research decision, not instructions for moving a crowd.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.