Pass active
Student 018
- Expected
- Room 204 → Bathroom A
- Status
- Overdue 4m
- Confidence
- High
School operations, made visible
School-controlledoperational awareness.
Developing indoor location observations and software to help school staff review movement, signal quality and information that needs follow up.
In development. Hardware checks and synthetic simulations. No deployed emergency routing.
Illustrative software interface
Illustrative data. No live school data or measured pilot results.
The problem we are investigating
Help staff understand what still needs checking.
When a badge observation, a pass and a staff report do not agree, someone has to decide what to check next. Valkor is exploring whether a shared view of the last observation, its age and the expected activity can make that review more useful.
Schools are the starting point for this work. The intended users are the staff responsible for movement, attendance follow up and operational coordination. A badge observation would supplement their review; official records and staff verification remain essential.
This is a product hypothesis. Discovery conversations need to establish which situations occur, how schools handle them today, what information is missing, and whether another tool would help. We have not established time savings, purchasing demand or improved emergency outcomes.
As findings become available, we will describe their scope and limits and use them to refine what we build and test.
Help define a useful evaluationSoftware in development
The command center is the centerpiece.
Priority, system confidence, pass context, and staff ownership stay together—so leaders can scan first and investigate second.
Illustrative software interface
Illustrative data. No live school data or measured pilot results.
Priority before volume
The next issue to review stays obvious.
Context before action
Confidence and freshness travel with each event.
Ownership to outcome
Assignment and follow-up remain visible.
How the work connects
Observations in. Building context. Reviewable routes.
Valkor brings together two connected development efforts: indoor location hardware that supplies observations, and a routing engine that evaluates a building model and reported conditions. Their integration is a development milestone; the routing experiments currently use simulated inputs.
- 01
Location hardware supplies observations
Tags and antennas provide observations about a device’s presence or direction. An observation needs a source and timestamp, with quality and confidence where available. A missing signal leaves a gap in the evidence; a badge detection alone does not prove who is present or whether a doorway is usable.
- 02
The engine evaluates a building model
Rooms, junctions and exits form a graph connected by doors and corridors. The engine combines that model with reported closures and available observations to find candidate paths. A closure must be supplied by a defined source; location hardware does not automatically detect hazards or blocked doors.
- 03
People review the result and its limits
The output should explain the route, the inputs used, and whether the evidence supports a result. Known closures can make an exit unreachable; stale or conflicting reports can leave insufficient information. Any future operational use would require validation and established staff and responder procedures.
A connected path is a statement about the model and its inputs. It does not establish that a route is safe, accessible to a particular person, or suitable for an emergency.
Illustrative command center
One calm view of what needs attention.
Illustrative interface and assumed values. These examples show the intended workflow, not measured school activity or reliability.
Active incidents
2 open
Receiver health
41 online
System confidence
High · 94%
Pass state
18 active
Stale signals
1 review
Staff response
Assigned
Illustrative software interface
Illustrative data. No live school data or measured pilot results.
Live product states
Features you can read at a glance.
Not generic capabilities. The actual states administrators review and act on.
Receiver health
Receiver B-04
- Status
- Stale
- Last heartbeat
- 3m ago
- Zone confidence
- Reduced
Suggested action Check receiver
Elevated · route deviation
Cafeteria Hall
- Freshness
- 3s ago
- Assigned
- Ms. Carter
- Status
- Responding
Illustrative evaluation
Example review fields
- Observation reliability
- To be measured
- False alerts
- To be measured
- Staff usefulness
- To be evaluated
Suggested action Review placement
Illustrative staff review
What a review should make clear.
Example fields with assumed data. Whether this view is useful to staff remains a question for discovery and evaluation.
Top priority
Overdue pass
Cafeteria Hall · 4m
Active incidents
2
1 assigned · 1 validating
Attendance / pass
18 active
1 needs review
Receiver health
41 / 42
East Hall B-04 stale
Next transition
11:24 AM
Lunch B → Period 5
Development progress · reviewed October 21, 2026
What exists, what is being tested, and what comes next.
Hardware checks, simulation features and future evaluation each answer different questions. Progress in one area does not establish performance in another.
Completed checks
Hardware setup and initial reception
Development hardware and test tags have been acquired, flashed and configured. Informal tests with one antenna and one tag explored directional reception at different distances and through walls.
These recorded observations establish initial reception only. They do not establish positioning accuracy, reliable room detection or school readiness.
Existing software
Synthetic routing and comparison tools
The research prototype supports building graphs, shortest path search, scheduled closures and reopenings, alternative exits, and separate simulation truth and reported observations. Comparison tools preserve a baseline while changing a selected connection.
Explicit outcomes include unreachable destinations and insufficient information. These are implemented simulation features, separate from a validated hardware connection or operational deployment.
Evaluation underway
Movement behavior and failure cases
Current simulation work examines doorway flow, congestion, controller behavior and incomplete runs. Evaluation must show where the model fails as well as where a route can be found.
Hardware evidence remains limited to the recorded initial checks. We are not reporting a completed multi antenna evaluation, measured positioning accuracy or a successful school pilot.
Future milestones
Measured integration and controlled review
Next milestones are documented testing with multiple antennas and tags, integration of observations with freshness and confidence, and independent review of the methods. A school evaluation would need its own agreed scope and success criteria.
No dates or outcomes are promised. Hardware reliability, staff usefulness and any future routing evaluation need separate evidence.
Research and experiments
Read the ideas behind the model.
Explore papers on changing networks, access to destinations and doorway congestion, with citations and a plain explanation of how each informs our experiments.
Trust and privacy
Built with clear boundaries.
The trust model supports the product. It does not have to overshadow it.
No GPS
No home tracking
No cameras
No microphones
No biometrics
No automatic discipline
School-controlled access
Human-reviewed workflows
Interactive research demonstration
One doorway closes. What changes?
Change a reported condition and inspect the result. This simplified browser model demonstrates the research prototype’s route availability policy. It runs a shortest path calculation over the illustrated graph.
SIMULATED DATA · Fictional building, assumed lengths and synthetic reports. No live hardware or school data. This is a graph demonstration, not a pedestrian simulation or emergency instruction.
Computed outcome
Candidate path found
FOUND
All four connections have simulated fresh OPEN reports.
Classroom → Hall junction → West exit
Modeled path length: 14 m. The shorter west path is available. Only connections with fresh OPEN reports are eligible.
This demonstration does not model crowds, hazards, individual mobility needs or travel time. A found path is not a safety assessment.
How the result is calculated
The browser uses Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm with assumed lengths of 8, 6, 12 and 10 metres. It searches fresh OPEN connections first. If no path is found, a second search allows stale connections while retaining known closures. A possible path in that second search produces INSUFFICIENT_INFORMATION; no possible path produces UNREACHABLE. It does not display the uncertain path as a recommendation.
The baseline west path is 14 m. Closing the west doorway leaves a 30 m east path. The origin, destinations, graph and lengths stay fixed across all four conditions. This is a separate, simplified implementation of the prototype’s graph policy, not a replay of a measured or full simulator run.
Contribute to the work
Bring a question we can test together.
We welcome specific critiques, technical contributions and conversations about a controlled evaluation. Start with one question, the experience you bring, and the evidence that would make an answer useful.
Researchers
Review a routing assumption, suggest a reproducible comparison, or help define how to measure doorway flow and uncertainty. A useful starting contribution is a written critique of one experiment and the evidence it would need.
Discuss a research questionDevelopers
Help investigate a specific failure case, review graph and observation interfaces, or improve reproducible tests. Start with a small scenario, expected behavior and a way to check the result.
Discuss a technical contributionSchool leaders and staff
Describe a real information gap, walk through the current process, and identify what staff would need to verify. You can also discuss a limited evaluation with agreed devices, zones, hours, privacy rules and stop conditions.
Discuss school needsEmail links open a draft in your email app. No message is sent by the website.
Limited pilot review
Define a controlled evaluation.
Discuss a proposed scope with defined zones, approved devices, authorized staff and agreed measurements. Timing and participation would be settled together.
Scope agreed with the school
Reliability and failure checks
Staff usefulness and privacy feedback
Revise, retest, or stop