More autonomy, same accountability
Deployed systems still have to stay inside operational bounds even when confidence, conditions, or communications degrade.
Company
Runtime Assurance
Founder-Led
We build runtime assurance for autonomous systems.
Zero-G Engine exists because autonomy capability is moving faster than deployment discipline. Teams can build agents, planners, and orchestration in weeks — but when conditions degrade, the runtime-control answer is usually missing.
Why We Built This
Autonomy capability is moving faster than operational assurance.
More teams now have models, agents, planners, and orchestration. Fewer have a runtime layer they can defend when conditions degrade, oversight is delayed, or the audit trail suddenly matters.
Silent drift is not acceptable
Mission and safety-critical environments need governed fallback and explicit escalation, not brittle automation or fail-open behavior.
Evidence integrity is operational
Reviewable runtime history matters for oversight, incident review, technical diligence, and deployment-level trust.
Founder
Brandon Burdin
15 years in operations across contact centers, insurance claims, healthcare, and BPO — environments where deployment consequence, system accountability, and operational evidence are not optional.
Zero-G Engine applies that operational discipline to autonomy systems: constrain action when conditions degrade, escalate before consequence, preserve the decision trail, and make deployed behavior reviewable under real conditions.
Operations background
Built and led teams from 50 to 2,000+ seats across insurance, healthcare, BPO, and field service operations.
Patent pending
U.S. provisional patent filed covering runtime governance architecture, metabolic adaptation, and decision provenance methods.
Proof-first posture
206 adversarial test vectors. 36 mapped controls. Explicit evidence boundaries and published non-claims. Built to survive technical diligence.
Who We Work With
Evaluation and collaboration with teams that own deployment risk.
The strongest conversations are with teams where runtime control, bounded degradation, and evidence integrity are already requirements — not aspirations.
Integrators and primes
Teams that absorb deployment risk and need a stronger runtime story for control, escalation, provenance, and recovery.
Program and technical leads
Evaluators deciding whether a runtime-control layer belongs in the stack before committing to a broader review.
Research institutions
Partners exploring scenario design, evaluation structure, or domain translation where runtime control is a real technical question.
Next Step
Start with a 20-minute technical briefing.
Bring your system context and deployment constraints. The goal is to decide whether the fit is real enough to continue.