Short answer
Lockout/tagout procedures are structured, equipment-specific documents that list energy sources, shutdown order, isolation points, locks and verification steps. As data they can support hazard reasoning, precondition checks and safety evaluation for maintenance robots. They contain no motion, force or perception data, so they cannot teach a humanoid to physically isolate a machine.
Why these documents are worth sourcing
Maintenance on powered equipment commonly begins with a safety gate: before anyone opens a guard or replaces a part, stored and live energy must be controlled. In the United States, OSHA's hazardous-energy standard requires employers to develop, document and use specific procedures for this when employees service equipment (OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.147). Those procedures are written down, machine by machine, which is unusual. Much maintenance knowledge lives in technicians' heads. These documents exist in a consistent structure because the rule asks for it.
For a team building maintenance-capable humanoids, that makes them a clean source of one specific thing: the safety preconditions of a repair task. A model that plans a bearing replacement should know that the plan starts with isolation and verification, not with a wrench. The documents are one input to that knowledge, alongside the wider work order histories and preventive maintenance checklists that describe the task itself.
What a procedure typically contains
Under the standard, such procedures are expected to cover scope, purpose, authorization, rules and techniques, plus the specific steps for shutting down, isolating, blocking and securing equipment (OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.147). The standard also contains a narrow documentation exception, so some equipment at a supplier's site may have no written procedure. Check with the supplier which of their machines are covered by a written procedure and which are not.
In practice, buyers see these fields:
- Equipment identity: asset tag, model, location, and the energy types present (electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, gravity, stored spring or thermal energy).
- Isolation points: each disconnect, valve or blocking device, often with a photo or a tag number.
- Sequence: ordered shutdown, isolate, lock, tag, release stored energy, verify steps.
- Verification: how the technician proves a zero-energy state, such as a try-start or a gauge reading.
- Restoration: removal of devices, clearing of personnel, re-energizing order.
- Authorization: who may apply locks and who may release them.
What this data can and cannot support
| Use | Can this data support it? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Precondition reasoning in a task planner | Yes | Ordered steps and named isolation points are directly checkable |
| Safety-aware evaluation prompts | Yes | Build test cases where a plan omits verification or isolation |
| Retrieval over equipment-specific procedures | Yes | Needs asset identity to be kept with each document |
| Recognizing disconnects, valves and lock hasps | Partly | Only where procedures include labeled photos; otherwise use tool and component image data |
| Learning to apply a lock or turn a valve | No | No motion, force or perception signal exists in the text |
| Certifying that a robot may perform lockout | No | Authorization rules are written for human authorized employees |
The data never replaces robot-side data. Applying a lockout device, operating a stiff valve handle or confirming a try-start requires hand motion, contact force and a sensor view. Those come from robot, teleoperation or instrumented capture, as covered in what SOPs can and cannot teach a humanoid. Whether any robot should be authorized to perform these steps is a safety and regulatory decision for the deploying organization, not something the documents settle.
Illustrative package for an energy-control procedure set
# Illustrative only - fields and values are synthetic examples, not an available dataset
package: energy_control_procedures_v0
source: one operator, 2 sites, 40 equipment-specific procedures
documents:
format: PDF plus extracted text; one record per asset
fields: [asset_id, equipment_class, energy_types, isolation_points[], step_sequence[], verification_method, restoration_steps[]]
media:
isolation_point_photos: JPEG, one per labeled point where the supplier has them
redaction:
removed: employee names, badge numbers, incident references, internal phone numbers
retained: asset class, location code (site_001), tag numbering scheme
linkage: procedure revision date; related work order class (optional)
excluded: audit findings, injury or near-miss records, any robot data
rights: training and evaluation use, no redistribution, deletion on request
A narrower package, such as only the step sequences without photos, is cheaper to clear but supports less perception work.
Limitations and additional preparation
Written procedures drift from practice. A document can be accurate and still describe a step technicians skip, or omit a shortcut that experienced staff rely on. Treat the text as the stated procedure, not observed behavior. Observed behavior needs recordings, discussed in recording in hazardous spaces.
Procedures are also specific to the machine. A set from one plant covers that plant's equipment classes, and your robot may encounter others. Ask for the distribution across equipment types before assuming coverage.
Expect these preparation steps:
- Normalize step language so that "kill power" and "de-energize" map to one concept.
- Link each isolation point to an identifier and, where available, a photo.
- Separate procedure text from audit notes and incident remarks, which should not travel with the licensed set.
- Split evaluation material by site and equipment class before any training use, keeping held-out sets separate.
Permissions and provenance
Energy-control documents may contain trade details about machine design, and safety files sit close to incident records, which operators treat as confidential. Ask the supplier who owns the procedure text, whether equipment manufacturers' manual content was copied into it, and whether any document references an investigation or enforcement matter. Redaction of names and incident details reduces exposure but does not settle whether the operator may license the document. This is not legal advice; involve counsel on both sides before signing.
Checking a sample before you license the set
Ask for three or four procedures chosen by you, not the supplier, and test them against a short list. First, can a reader reconstruct the exact order of isolation without outside knowledge? Procedures that say "isolate all energy sources" without naming each point carry little structure. Second, does each step name a device, location or tag, so that a perception model could later be tied to a physical object? Third, does the verification step say how zero energy is proven, or does it stop at "ensure safe"?
Then compare procedures across equipment of the same class. If two similar machines have wildly different step counts, find out whether that reflects real design differences or inconsistent writing. Both cases matter, but they need different handling: the first is signal, the second is label noise.
Finally, check the revision trail. A procedure that predates a machine modification may describe isolation points that no longer exist. Mark such documents as superseded rather than dropping them silently, because they are useful negative examples for evaluation prompts about stale instructions.
Energy control is one part of wider maintenance work: see industrial machinery maintenance for the tasks that follow isolation, torque specs and fastening procedures for the reassembly side, and machine safety constraints for recording if you plan new capture near the equipment.
Questions to ask suppliers
- How many equipment-specific procedures exist, and for which equipment classes and sites?
- Which machines rely on a simple procedure or the documentation exception, and are those excluded or included?
- How current is each revision, and is the revision history available?
- Do the documents include labeled photos of isolation points, and who took them?
- Was manufacturer manual text reproduced inside the procedures, and does the supplier hold the right to license it?
- Have names, badge numbers, incident references and contact details been removed, and by whom?
- Are audit findings or periodic inspection notes stored in the same files, and can they be excluded?
- Which team, such as EHS or maintenance engineering, can approve licensing the set?
- Can procedures be linked to asset IDs and to work order classes without exposing other records?
Discuss your requirements
If you need energy-control procedures as safety-reasoning or evaluation data, describe the equipment classes, formats and permitted uses to SourceX. SourceX looks for US businesses that hold suitable material, checks the data and the supplier's licensing permissions, and coordinates the license and delivery. A request does not guarantee a match; SourceX follows up about potential sources. For wider context, see the maintenance data hub, the humanoid training data guide, and the catalog entry for SOPs, playbooks and knowledge bases.
Discuss your humanoid training-data requirements with SourceX
Sources
- 29 CFR 1910.147 The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) — employer duty to document specific energy-control procedures and what those procedures cover.