Modules › Regulatory method
Module 07 · ROAT-MOD-METHOD · method
What has to be established, in what order, before a regulatory conclusion about automated driving can be trusted?
Most regulatory analysis of automated driving starts in the middle: it asks what the rules say before it has fixed which decision the analysis must support, which sociotechnical practice is actually being regulated, and whose problem definition is being adopted. The framework below is the order ROAT works in, written down so that a reader can see which stage a conclusion came from and which stages were done lightly.
Two things are worth saying plainly about it. It is an integration, not an invention: the outer process is Ronald Leenes's TechReg model, and what ROAT adds is the automated-vehicle module inside stages 5 to 8 and 12 — the N0-N4 functional-layer vector, the actor and function ontology, and the bridge and gate taxonomy that the other modules of this Observatory apply. And it is deliberately scalable: not every short doctrinal memo needs a full ethical or legitimacy chapter, and a framework that demanded one would simply be ignored.
This page is a methods statement, not a coded dataset. It carries no jurisdiction claims and therefore no per-row evidence; the sources it rests on are cited for the framework as a whole.
The framework
The numbering is the working order, not a ranking. Later findings may require reframing earlier stages; the process is iterative by design.
What concrete regulatory decision must the analysis support, at what level and on what date?
Which features, functions and affordances of the technology matter legally and socially?
What is the problem represented to be, by whom, and what alternative frames exist?
Who benefits, who bears risk or cost, and which rights/values are affected?
What law already applies before assuming that new AV-specific law is needed?
How deeply is automated driving legally embedded in each regulatory function?
Where and how does the fit between law and sociotechnical practice break?
What legal mechanism lets one regulatory layer function while adjacent layers remain less mature?
Why intervene, whose interests are served, and what stance toward innovation is justified?
Who or what should be regulated, with which instrument, and how will the control loop work?
Is the intervention legally valid, institutionally legitimate, accountable and likely to be accepted?
What regulatory configuration/pathway does the jurisdiction represent, and what can travel across borders?
What post-deployment evidence can falsify assumptions and trigger revision?
Integration verdict
N0–N4 functional-layer vector; actor/function ontology; bridge/gate analysis; pathway families; explicit evidence, confidence and caveat discipline.
Why
These are more granular for automated-vehicle legal architecture than the general TechReg model.
How it is used
Treat them as the core AV-specific module inside stages 5–8 and 12.
Sociotechnical scoping; problem framing; stakeholder/ethical assessment; explicit justification for intervention; innovation-governance posture; instrument choice/control loop; legality–legitimacy–acceptance–accountability.
Why
These supply the upstream and downstream stages that were less explicit in the current ROAT analytical architecture.
How it is used
Use them as mandatory questions, with depth proportionate to the task.
Operational research register Methodology and substantive regulatory-analysis methodology solve different problems.
Why
The existing Methodology tab governs evidence/workflow integrity, not the substance of AV regulatory analysis.
How it is used
Do not overwrite the operational Methodology tab; use this dedicated analytical tab.
Run one end-to-end case to test whether the framework generates additional decision-relevant insight without making ordinary analyses unnecessarily complex.
Why
The framework is expressly designed to be iterative and scalable from quick scan to deep analysis.
How it is used
Pilot on the Slovakia transition from conditional/test operation toward ordinary/commercial FAV deployment, then compare the result with France and Croatia.
Snapshot record
ROAT-SNAP-METHOD-2026-09-05 · 2026-09-05 · data exported 2026-09-05Sources
Cite this snapshot
ROAT Observatory, The ROAT regulatory analysis framework [ROAT-MOD-METHOD], snapshot 2026-09-05 [ROAT-SNAP-METHOD-2026-09-05], DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22409314. Jozef Andraško. /modules/regulatory-method/2026-09-05/