Bridge Checkpoint: What a Java Object Actually Proves

A Java object can model a robot component without being connected to a robot runtime.

Consider:

var sensor = new RangeSensor("front", 0.02, 4.0);

From Java-side evidence you may be able to prove:

• the object was constructed;
• its constructor enforced local invariants;
• its methods produced expected results for supplied inputs;
• its state changed in the JVM.

You cannot infer from that evidence alone that:

• a WPILib scheduler knows about the object;
• a ROS 2 node exists;
• a sensor published a message;
• hardware produced the value.

Evidence inventory

Create two columns: local Java claim and stronger system claim.

For each local observation, write the additional evidence needed before crossing into a framework, ROS, or physical claim.

Example:

Java test passes
→ proves method behavior for tested inputs
→ does not prove ROS message delivery

This distinction is more important in the bridge than another class-definition exercise.

If constructors or encapsulation need review, use java-programming. Here, the object is treated as one evidence layer in a larger robot system.