Defining System Boundaries in Non-Visual Radar Architectures

Engineering Insight

Context & Problem Framing

In non-visual radar architectures, system boundaries are often assumed rather than explicitly defined during early project phases. In OEM projects, these systems typically emerge as alternatives or supplements to visual sensing—supporting functions such as environmental awareness, presence detection, or state inference—yet their engineering role is far less intuitive than that of cameras or conventional sensors.

This issue most commonly appears during concept definition or pre-architecture freeze, but is frequently overlooked because radar is treated as a black-box sensing source and non-visual failure modes lack immediate observability.

System-Level Assumptions

• Radar functions as a non-visual sensing element within single- or multi-radar system topologies.
• The system operates in real physical environments with dynamic targets and environmental variability.
• Radar modules are supplied by vendors, while overall system behavior and decisions remain the OEM’s responsibility.

Core Engineering Considerations

In non-visual radar architectures, system boundaries are not inherent—they are explicitly created through engineering decisions. The abstraction level of radar output, interface responsibility, and distribution of decision-making across layers fundamentally determines where those boundaries are drawn.

Trade-offs & Implications

Boundary definitions directly affect system complexity, verification strategy, reliability, and long-term maintainability. Ambiguous boundaries tend to surface as integration friction and lifecycle cost amplification rather than immediate functional failure.

Common Misinterpretations

• Treating radar output as objective ground truth without acknowledging underlying assumptions.
• Assuming system boundaries can be deferred and defined later without architectural consequence.
• Believing non-visual systems do not require interpretability.

Boundary & Responsibility Clarification

Modules are responsible for sensing capability implementation, while systems are responsible for interpretation, decision-making, and compliance. Supplier performance does not automatically define system-level behavior.

Engineering Takeaways

• If system boundaries are not explicitly defined, system behavior will not be consistently reproducible.
• If responsibility for sensing outputs is unclear, integration-stage issues will be difficult to diagnose.
• If boundary definitions rely on implicit assumptions, system scalability and reuse will be constrained.

Scope & Disclaimer

This article applies to non-visual radar used as part of a larger system architecture. It is not a tutorial, specification, or system commitment. Engineering judgments may evolve with system lifecycles, regulations, or deployment conditions.