Modules › Layered normalisation › 2026-08-25
Module 01 · ROAT-MOD-LAYERS
How far has each regulatory function normalised automated driving, and which legal bridge or gate manages the mismatch between layers?
Each regime is a vector of seven layer states, not a single maturity score. Read across a row for the configuration; read down a column to compare one function. The five 2026 regimes do not line up on one common ladder: they display different layer configurations and different leading layers, and the legal bridge or gate that manages the interface between a leading and a lagging layer differs in doctrinal form even where the pathway repeats.
Draft law is excluded from current-law scores and shown separately as sensitivity evidence. The historical United Kingdom panel (1861–1930) applies the same coding to the normalisation of the motor car and is published as a separate snapshot of this module.
N0–N4 ordinal coding of seven functional layers per regime; range and asynchrony as descriptive signals of inter-layer asymmetry; pathway families as recurring configurations. Scores measure legal embedding, not regulatory intensity, and are never aggregated per jurisdiction.
The table
Select a row for every coded dimension, the rationale and the ROAT records behind it.
| Regime | Technical approval | Road access / operation | Actor allocation | Liability / risk | Behavioural rules | Infrastructure | International / cross-border | Range · asynchrony | Configuration family |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current law · snapshot 2026-08-25 | |||||||||
| EU / UNECE baselineArt 34bis agency/deeming; Art 39 equivalence/exemption; national operational law remains necessary | N3 | N2 | N2 | N2 | N2 | N1 | N3 | 2 · Significant | Technical + international harmonisation-leading configuration |
EU / UNECE baseline Technical + international harmonisation-leading configuration | |||||||||
| Great BritainAPS permit bridge before full 2027 AV Act implementation | N3 | N2 | N3 | N3 | N2 | N1 | N2 | 2 · Significant | Actor / institutional-leading configuration with staged operational permitting |
Great Britain Actor / institutional-leading configuration with staged operational permitting | |||||||||
| CroatiaMandatory real-world service validation on a registered sample vehicle before passenger service | N3 | N3 | N3 | N2 | N3 | N2 | N2 | 1 · Mild | Deployment-assurance configuration – service-test variant |
Croatia Deployment-assurance configuration – service-test variant | |||||||||
| Slovakia§ 49 test-operation permit; narrower ADV operational regime | N3 | N1 | N1 | N1 | N1 | N1 | N2 | 2 · Significant | Testing-permit / technical-leading configuration |
Slovakia Testing-permit / technical-leading configuration | |||||||||
| FrancePrior safety demonstration + qualified-body opinions + organiser decision of mise en service | N3 | N3 | N3 | N2 | N3 | N2 | N2 | 1 · Mild | Deployment-assurance configuration – system safety-case / organiser-decision variant |
France Deployment-assurance configuration – system safety-case / organiser-decision variant | |||||||||
| Sensitivity · prospective law (not current-law scores) | |||||||||
| Slovakia from 1 Sept 2026 – Act 131/2026 onlyThe amendment broadens/adjusts § 49 trial mechanics but does not itself create a general deployment/operator regime. | N3 | N1 | N1 | N1 | N1 | N1 | N2 | UNCHANGED PATHWAY | The amendment broadens/adjusts § 49 trial mechanics but does not itself create a general deployment/operator regime. |
Slovakia from 1 Sept 2026 – Act 131/2026 only prospective | |||||||||
| Slovakia if print 1329 enacted substantially as proposedWould move Slovakia from test-permit accommodation toward dedicated institutionalisation, while infrastructure and cross-border operational recognition would remain less mature. | N3 | N3 | N3 | N2 | N3 | N1 | N2 | PATHWAY SHIFT | Would move Slovakia from test-permit accommodation toward dedicated institutionalisation, while infrastructure and cross-border operational recognition would remain less mature. |
Slovakia if print 1329 enacted substantially as proposed prospective | |||||||||
Scores measure legal embedding, not regulatory intensity. Draft law is excluded from current-law scores and shown separately (dashed cells).
Pathway families
Technical and/or international layers are at least one stage ahead of operational/actor layers.
2026 case
EU/UNECE; Slovakia (stronger national variant)
Analytical value
Shows why type approval cannot be treated as equivalent to lawful deployment.
Dedicated responsible actors and liability/authorisation architecture precede full ordinary operational implementation.
2026 case
Great Britain
Analytical value
Falsifies one-directional pacing accounts: law can lead deployment.
Vehicle technical approval is followed by a separate service or system-level safety gate before ordinary operation.
2026 case
Croatia - real-world service-test gate; France - safety-case + qualified assessment + organiser mise-en-service decision
Analytical value
Portability result: the pathway repeats across jurisdictions even though the bridging mechanism differs.
Public-road access remains predominantly experimental/conditional despite advanced technical standards.
2026 case
Slovakia
Analytical value
Illustrates persistent inter-layer mismatch and dependence on legal bridges.
The five 2026 regimes do not line up on one common ladder. They display different layer configurations and different leading layers. France strengthens the model because it replicates the deployment-assurance family through a different legal mechanism than Croatia.
The strongest defensible contribution is a vector/pathway model: jurisdiction-specific configurations of functional-layer states produce recurring pathway families, while legal bridges or gates differ in doctrinal form.
Robustness
Rule-based second-pass recoding by the same coder of six cells under stricter decision rules; 2 of 6 moved by one stage, no jurisdiction changed pathway family. Not inter-coder reliability.
| Cell audited | First pass | Strict decision rule | Second pass | Change | Effect on pathway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU/UNECE - liability/risk | N2 | Require dedicated AV-specific liability institutionalisation for N2+ | N1 | -1 | None - technical/international lead becomes stronger |
| Great Britain - international/cross-border | N2 | Require dedicated reciprocal operational recognition, not only participation in UNECE technical instruments | N1 | -1 | None - actor/institution-first pathway unchanged |
| Croatia - liability/risk | N2 | Dedicated traffic-offence and owner responsibility is insufficient for N3 without mature AV-specific civil-liability allocation | N2 | 0 | None |
| Slovakia - actor allocation | N1 | Draft operator and control-centre roles are excluded; narrower ADV and trial roles do not establish general FAV institutionalisation | N1 | 0 | None |
| France - liability/risk | N2 | Dedicated criminal responsibility exists, but N3 requires a broader stable AV-specific liability and risk architecture | N2 | 0 | None |
| France - infrastructure | N2 | Route and zone infrastructure is integrated into the safety case, but infrastructure is not yet routinised as an ordinary AV-wide layer | N2 | 0 | None |
| Audit result | 2 of 6 audited cells moved by one stage under stricter rules; no jurisdiction changed pathway family. | This is a robustness or sensitivity check only. It is not inter-coder reliability and should not be reported as such. |
2 of 6 audited cells moved by one stage under stricter rules; no jurisdiction changed pathway family. This is a robustness or sensitivity check only. It is not inter-coder reliability and should not be reported as such.
Snapshot record
ROAT-SNAP-LAYERS-2026-08-25 · legal snapshot date 2026-08-25 · data exported 2026-09-05Sources cited in this snapshot
Cite this snapshot
ROAT Observatory, Regulatory normalisation by functional layer [ROAT-MOD-LAYERS], snapshot 2026-08-25 [ROAT-SNAP-LAYERS-2026-08-25], DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22409314. Jozef Andraško. /modules/layered-normalisation/2026-08-25/