Risk Register
This section documents identified risks for the YPF Unmanned Aerial Monitoring Service engagement, including probability assessments, impact analysis, and mitigation strategies.
Contents
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| Technical Risks | AI accuracy, sensor integration, edge processing |
| Operational Risks | ANAC compliance, weather, connectivity |
| Commercial Risks | Scope, pricing, IP |
| Project Risks | Team, coordination, timeline |
Risk Summary
| ID | Risk | Category | Level | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | AI model accuracy in field conditions | Technical | High | Phased approach |
| T2 | Multi-sensor data quality | Technical | Medium | Validation |
| T3 | 20-minute SLA achievement | Technical | Medium | Architecture |
| T4 | GPR interpretation complexity | Technical | High | Deferred |
| O1 | ANAC BVLOS approval delays | Operational | High | Aerotec lead |
| O2 | Weather/environmental impact | Operational | Medium | Design |
| O3 | Remote site connectivity | Operational | Medium | Redundancy |
| C1 | Integration scope creep | Commercial | High | Boundaries |
| C2 | Timeline pressure | Commercial | Medium | Phased delivery |
| C3 | IP ownership clarity | Commercial | Low | Contract |
| P1 | Team availability | Project | Medium | Commitment |
| P2 | Knowledge transfer effectiveness | Project | Medium | Embedded |
| P3 | Aerotec/Trifork coordination | Project | Low | Process |
Risk Assessment Framework
Probability Scale
| Level | Definition | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| High | Likely to occur | > 50% |
| Medium | May occur | 25-50% |
| Low | Unlikely | < 25% |
Impact Scale
| Level | Definition | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| High | Major impact | SLA failure or significant delay |
| Medium | Moderate impact | Scope adjustment or minor delay |
| Low | Minor impact | Workaround available |
Top Priority Risks
1. AI Model Accuracy in Field Conditions (T1)
Level: High
Description: Achieving ≥95% accuracy across all 17 use cases in Vaca Muerta's challenging conditions (dust, extreme temperatures, wind) may require more iteration than anticipated.
Mitigation:
- Phased approach with accuracy targets per phase
- Rail yard experience provides baseline
- Operator feedback loop for continuous improvement
- Conservative accuracy claims until validated
Contingency: Extend Phase 2-3 if accuracy targets not met; prioritize highest-value use cases.
2. ANAC BVLOS Approval Delays (O1)
Level: High
Description: BVLOS authorization under Resolution 550/2025 requires regulatory approval that may delay operational readiness.
Mitigation:
- Aerotec leads regulatory relationship
- Early application submission
- Alternative VLOS operations during approval period
- Platform development not dependent on flight ops
Contingency: Develop platform with simulated/historical data until BVLOS approved.
3. Integration Scope Creep (C1)
Level: High
Description: SAP PM and SCADA integrations may reveal unexpected complexity, consuming more effort than budgeted.
Mitigation:
- Clear scope boundaries in contract
- SAP PM as MVP; SCADA as post-MVP
- Discovery phase before commitment
- Change control process
Contingency: Defer complex integrations to post-MVP; manual workflows as interim.
Risk Monitoring
Weekly Review
Each progress review includes:
- New risks identified?
- Changes to existing risk levels?
- Mitigation progress?
- Contingency triggers approaching?
Escalation Path
| Level | Escalation Path | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Principal + YPF VP | Same day |
| High | PM + Technical Lead | 24 hours |
| Medium | Weekly review | Next review |
| Low | Documentation | As needed |