Forty percent from the work assignment in part one, thirty from part two with a technical discussion; the rest is written. Assessed are planning, execution, function testing and occupational safety. It is the same structure that applies to machines: a passed acceptance test is a snapshot of a sample — it holds for the section that was checked and for the moment it was checked. What was never observed has not been tested. It simply did not come up. (Examination structure for the German industrial automation electronics qualification.)
If no document decides whether a behavior is correct, the person who built it decides — or the person judging it. Both may be excellent. But two experienced examiners can rate the same work differently without either being wrong. That is not a statement about people; it is a statement about the gap they have to work in.
Without a reference, the person is the reference.In a conversation, a stated open assumption is hard to reward — it sounds like doubt. Against an object it is the opposite: proof that someone knows the difference between defined and assumed.
WhiteBox does not mean you can see the code. WhiteBox means conformity becomes decidable instead of a matter of judgment.Training happens on a line — yours, or our model of a transfer line. What stands at the end is not an attendance note but something someone else can check.
State space, reference, derivation, the four gates, verification and validation. Not a tool tutorial: the tool comes once it is clear what it is meant to produce.
The participant creates a Behavior Reference (BR) from intent and PTF (Process · Technology · Function). The Behavior Reference (BR) is not after-the-fact documentation of the code. It exists before the code — and that is precisely the part that has to be practiced.
Derivation of code, HMI, documentation and data structure, then checking against the reference with test cases derived from it. Where possible on the digital twin first.
The Evidence Record states which role was demonstrated against which object, which gate was passed, at which version of the reference — and what remained open. That belongs in it too. Not a certificate: a record that is kept and stays checkable for as long as the object exists.
Until now a plant could only ask for years of experience. From here it can ask for a result — and that is the difference between a wish and a requirement.
Creates a reference from intent and PTF (Process · Technology · Function). Demonstrated when it is complete and free of contradictions and covers the stated operating modes, fault cases and restart situations.
Derives from the released reference and checks against it. Demonstrated when code, HMI, documentation and data structure agree and the test cases come from the reference, not from experience.
Produces the evidence and states its limit. Demonstrated when the report says what was decided, what remained open and what would refute the statement.
Role, object, gate passed, date, version of the reference, open points. Checkable for as long as the object exists — unlike a note about a single day.
Not “three years of experience with this controller”, but “has produced a reference that passed the Behavior Gate”.
A gate is a decision, not a date. Training follows the same four the project will follow later — which is why what is practiced is not exercise material but the procedure itself.
State space, reference, derivation, check logic. Then clarification of intent and PTF (Process · Technology · Function) on the chosen object.
Gate 0
Producing the Behavior Reference (BR): states, transitions, interlocks, open assumptions marked as open.
Behavior Gate
Derivation and checking against the reference, on the digital twin first where possible. Verification asks: was it built right? Validation asks: was the right thing built?
Verification Gate
Presenting and discussing the result, entering it in the Evidence Record, naming what remained open.
Validation Gate
Evidence does not become stronger by claiming more. It becomes stronger when its edge is known.
Foundation, modeling, deriving and verifying on your line or on our model of a transfer line.
Presentation of the result, discussion, entry in the Evidence Record per role and object.
The reference produced and the test report belong to the participant and their company.
The Selmo qualifications are manufacturer-owned records issued by Selmo Technology GmbH. They evidence the ability to apply the method — they are not accredited personnel certification under ISO/IEC 17024 and do not replace a vocational qualification.
The reference decides conformity, not soundness. Whether what was defined is the right thing remains a question for people who know the line.
Maturity levels L0 to L5 classify machine behavior, not people. No ranking of individuals can be derived from them.
Anyone who only wants to learn to operate Selmo Studio gets too much method here. Without a released Behavior Reference (BR) the tool only models faster into the approximate.
The order is the path, not the revenue. Enablement comes last because it is the only part that remains after the project: a plant that can apply the method itself does not need us for the next site.
Target picture, use case and roadmap.
Where conformity is decidable today and where behavior has no reference.
One released Behavior Reference (BR) for a bounded unit module.
Implementation derived from the Behavior Reference (BR) and verified against it.
Behavior-Centric Engineering (BCE) as the standard across several plants.
Behavioral integrity across the lifecycle, changes as change verification.
Enabling the team, Selmo-owned qualifications.
The Behavior Reference (BR) can only be as good as the intent and the PTF (Process · Technology · Function) it comes from. An unclear intent does not become clear through modeling.
The question this is about
15–30 minutes. We bring the answer, not the presentation.