Personal, Proximity & Low-Rate Mesh Technologies

01 / 10

“Short range” hides different jobs

Can one “short-range radio” and one current figure describe telemetry, commissioning, identification and distance?

A sensor wakes, releases a report and goes quiet. During installation, a technician expects that same product to appear promptly on a phone. A label must identify the unit while its battery is disconnected. A proposed ranging feature must distinguish the nearby machine from the next one. These are four services with different observers, clocks and energy sources.

Predict the missing device in each service before selecting a technology. Telemetry needs an available gateway. Commissioning needs a discoverable peer and an agreed application procedure. A passive label needs an energizing reader. Ranging needs a defined timing exchange and an estimator. A family name cannot supply those missing roles.

One product, four jobs · same case, different service boundaries
Job	Required service	Energy and evidence boundary
Normal telemetry	32 D0 bytes each 60 s; ≥99% complete at gateway D0 within 2 s in each declared site/mounting stratum.	Battery radio plus separately powered gateway; actual state/packet/D0 traces unknown.
Commissioning	Operator requests discovery and configures the exact unit. The 60 s periodic report requirement is not applicable to this job.	Node discovery/connection plus phone or gateway; application/security procedure unknown.
Passive identification	Read unit identity when a reader is deliberately presented. Autonomous 60 s reporting: not applicable.	Tag harvests energy; reader supply is outside the tag boundary. Read success in the enclosure unknown.
Optional ranging	Distance to a compatible peer. Required error percentile and geometry are not yet specified.	Both ranging peers and their clocks/antennas; telemetry energy is not an accuracy model.

$\text{D0 goodput demand} = 8 \times \frac{32}{60} = \frac{4.266666\ldots \mathrm{bit}}{s}$ Derived service average over a 60 s report period, before losses. D0 is application payload. This is neither PHY serialization rate nor instantaneous on-air throughput.

Carry forward 07.1’s versioned evidence card. Its extended-advertising variant remains P07-M01-LE-EXT-v1. This lesson adds P07-M02-LE-CONN-v1 and P07-M02-THREAD-SED-v1 as new candidates. The earlier generic 2.450 GHz QPSK waveform stays a separate teaching baseline.

Bring these tools of thought

Modulation and waveform tradeoffs distinguish symbols from delivered bits. Transmit power, fidelity and efficiency separates RF output from DC input. Antennas in real products supplies the mounted RF boundary. Measurement execution belongs to Path 08; market determinations to Path 09.

Common misconceptionShort range is a complete use case.

The consequence is a product that has enough link margin but is asleep when the operator needs it. Write the release event, endpoint, deadline, availability and power owner before comparing radios.

Go deeperThe deadline statistic belongs at the application boundary

Latency starts at node D0 release and ends with the complete report at gateway D0. Duplicates count once; absent and late reports miss the deadline. Test each predeclared mounting/orientation/site stratum with a justified population and confidence method. A pooled success fraction can conceal a persistently weak installation. No such trial has occurred in this case.

02 / 10

Topology determines who stays awake

If every node sleeps, who hears the next packet?

A topology is also a schedule of obligations. Broadcasting gives a sender freedom from maintaining one peer relationship, but someone must scan. A connection creates rendezvous opportunities, with clock tolerance and maintenance costs. A star concentrates listening at a hub. Mesh adds forwarding obligations; a sleepy leaf delegates them.

Think about itA router and a sleepy leaf use the same radio. Should their average current be similar?

Answer

No. The router’s listening/forwarding allocation can dominate its supply even when its own application sends nothing. The leaf can sleep because another device stays available. Compare their state-time allocations before comparing silicon currents.

Original role diagram; scroll horizontally on narrow screens. A direct connection collapses the middle hop; a passive tag instead receives energy from a reader’s field. Neither change removes the other device’s supply.

Who supplies timing and availability? · functional roles
Role / topology	Timing or service owner	What the node ledger omits
Broadcast observer	Observer scans at times/channels that must overlap transmissions.	Scanner energy, collisions and missed windows.
Connected star	Central and Peripheral use agreed connection timing.	Gateway load, connection maintenance not present in the toy event.
Mesh router / sleepy leaf	Routers forward; a parent serves its nonrouting sleepy child.	Parent queues, route repair, powered coverage and additional hops.
Passive tag / reader	Reader supplies a field and interrogation schedule.	Reader RF/DC energy; periodic autonomous reporting is not applicable.
Ranging initiator / responder	Both peers timestamp a defined exchange.	Responder energy, turnaround and clock/antenna calibration.

For Thread, the public role explanation distinguishes nonrouting end devices from routing devices and an IP border router. A border router connects Thread to another IP network; it is not the leaf’s application or an automatic guarantee of backhaul availability. THREAD-ROLES.

$E_{\mathrm{RX}} = V I_{\mathrm{RX}} T = 3 \times 0.006 \times 60 = 1.08 J$ Illustrative independent continuous-RX allocation: 3 V, 6 mA for 60 s, giving 360 mC and 1080 mJ. There is no sleep, TX or overlapping node event in this separate router example.

The node’s default radio ledger later totals 0.6309038808 mJ over the same 60 s. That contrast comes from chosen state occupancy, not a measured router-to-leaf benchmark. Routing transmissions and the router’s host would add to the bounded continuous-RX example.

Common misconceptionMesh extends every battery node’s range for free.

A leaf gains access to a powered forwarding network. Every hop needs usable RF conditions, airtime and available equipment. Budget that infrastructure explicitly; choosing “mesh” does not turn a sleeping sensor into an always-available relay.

Go deeperBluetooth Mesh has its own roles

The SIG’s primer describes optional Relay, Friend and Low Power features. A Friend buffers messages for a Low Power node to collect; relaying may use managed flooding or directed forwarding. Mesh Protocol 1.1.1 is a separate adopted identity, not an automatic capability of every LE connection. Its normative body and a suitable application model remain unreviewed here. BT-MESH.

Decision: keep the condition-monitoring node a leaf or direct Peripheral unless a product requirement and power budget justify routing. Next, name the actual radio mode behind that role.

03 / 10

Read Bluetooth LE by PHY and state

Does “Bluetooth LE supported” tell you how this 32-byte report reaches the gateway?

Freeze Core 6.2 LE 1M, Peripheral-to-Central connected telemetry, with a private sensor schema using a GATT notification hypothesis. Initial advertising/discovery and association are separate states; later reports may use an existing connection. The product must define its actual connection maintenance and reconnection policy before allocating energy.

Selected Core 6.2 PHY meanings · device support is a separate question
PHY / capability	Documented distinction	What to verify at both peers
LE 1M	Mandatory uncoded 1 Mbit/s PHY.	Selected baseline; actual RF performance and host service unknown.
LE 2M	Optional uncoded 2 Mbit/s PHY.	Mutual support and whether adaptation actually selects it.
LE Coded	Optional; coded data rates 125 or 500 kbit/s, with fields using specified coding.	Coding choice, packet construction and airtime; no fixed range multiplier.
Channel Sounding	Optional ranging-related capability with its own procedures.	Not selected here. Ordinary LE 1M telemetry does not establish ranging support.

These are bounded PHY definitions from BT-RF. Core 6.3 is also listed at implementation time; selecting an older adopted identity is deliberate. The Core 6.2 catalogue flags required update 28108, whose detailed clause impact remains an open review item. BT-STATUS.

Core 6.2 Link Layer data PDUs have a variable payload up to 251 octets; an encrypted PDU can include a four-octet MIC in that length. Connection events use a selected data channel, and capabilities are declared separately. These boundaries do not make 251 bytes available to the sensor schema. Negotiated limits, upper-layer headers and encryption consume or constrain the budget. BT-LL.

Application capacity ≤ negotiated lower-layer capacity − actual upper-layer overheadA boundary rule, not a universal byte count. Pin ATT MTU, Link Layer length, security and schema; then check fragmentation at every layer. No synthetic 80-byte frame maximum is assigned to Bluetooth.

Checked example: the 32 D0 bytes are 256 application bits. Encoding them may span lower-layer packets, and connection events may carry maintenance traffic between reports. The 0.384 ms toy frame later is therefore a disclosed serialization exercise, not a prediction of this GATT transaction.

Common misconceptionPHY rate is payload throughput.

A faster PHY can shorten selected on-air fields while leaving discovery, scheduling, turnarounds and host processing. Measure complete gateway D0 delivery across the declared interval before calling the PHY improvement a service improvement.

Go deeperWhich acknowledgement did you observe?

A GATT notification does not request an ATT-layer acknowledgement. Link Layer delivery and application receipt are distinct evidence. Even a successfully acknowledged link packet does not establish that the complete report reached the gateway application before its deadline. Specify and log that endpoint separately. BT-GATT.

Decision: retain connected LE where a direct gateway is available and maintenance is affordable. Initial discovery may be amortized over many reports; that is a hypothesis for a current trace, not permission to erase it. Qualification remains its own design/test-plan question. BT-QUAL.

04 / 10

Separate IEEE 802.15.4 from its ecosystem

If two products use IEEE 802.15.4, can their applications exchange a report?

Not from that fact alone. IEEE 802.15.4 names a PHY/MAC family; routing, network adaptation and application meaning require additional choices. Its current 2024 catalogue establishes identity and scope here; the normative body has not been obtained. Do not invent a 2024 conformance clause from an introductory page. IEEE-LR.

For physical intuition, select the legacy 2.4 GHz O-QPSK/DSSS mode described by TI’s CC2520 example: 250 kbit/s data and 2 Mchip/s spreading. A chip is a spreading element; a data bit is information before that mapping. The historical vendor text explains this mode, not all PHYs or a current product’s performance. TI-PHY.

$32 \times \frac{8}{250000} = 0.001024 s$ Derived serialization of only 32 uncoded input bytes at the stated data rate: 1.024 ms. This excludes actual PHY/MAC/network/application overhead, medium access, acknowledgements and retries.

Layer responsibilities · shared physical family does not imply shared service
Layer / role	Candidate definition	Still unknown
PHY / MAC	Selected 2.4 GHz O-QPSK mode; MAC access, addressing and link acknowledgement need exact configuration.	Actual payload room, channel/access configuration and packet trace.
Thread network	P07-M02-THREAD-SED-v1: Thread 1.4.1 identity to verify; sleepy end device attached to a powered parent.	Normative dependencies, parent availability, poll schedule and route evidence.
Application / IP boundary	Private condition-monitoring service; IP border connectivity if the gateway is on another network.	Schema, application receipt, commissioning and security. Matter is not assumed.
Zigbee alternative	Zigbee 4.0 is an alliance stack/release identity, not another name for Thread.	Exact profile, role, support, revision dependencies and certification scope.
Coordinator / router / leaf	A MAC coordinator has MAC coordination duties; an upper-layer router forwards network traffic; a sleepy leaf does not.	Do not reuse a Zigbee coordinator label as the definition of every Thread role.

The Thread 1.4.1 request page is accessible; its full specification remains unread. Use the public topology explanation for role intuition and keep exact feature requirements open. The Thread 1.4 white paper describes TCAT-over-Bluetooth LE conditionally; it does not say every Thread product has that second radio. THREAD-ID, THREAD-ROLES, THREAD-14.

Prediction: adding a powered router may improve a weak hop, but what happens to a report’s deadline during route repair? Without queue, access and repair evidence, the answer remains unknown. “More hops” describes connectivity structure; it does not give a latency distribution.

Common misconceptionIEEE 802.15.4 is a complete mesh application.

Selecting a PHY/MAC leaves important layers unchosen. Two radios can recognize the same waveform while disagreeing on addresses, network behavior or payload meaning. Budget and verify the complete chain.

Go deeperA newer release does not activate every band

CSA’s November 2025 announcement identifies Zigbee 4.0 and optional Suzi sub-GHz capabilities. That is a prompt to inspect the intended PHY, regional parameters, endpoint support and market applicability. It does not enable those modes on the chosen 2.4 GHz Thread leaf. The Zigbee specification body was not read for this lesson. CSA-ZIGBEE.

Decision: keep a Thread sleepy leaf as the second telemetry candidate only where the powered network is a real product dependency. Its energy advantage or disadvantage must come from observed states, not its ecosystem name.

05 / 10

UWB ranging needs a timing budget

A timestamp has 1 ns resolution. Does the product now know distance to 15 cm?

A timestamp is an estimator’s representation of an event. Its step size is resolution; repeated estimates’ spread is precision; closeness to true distance is accuracy. An offset in the chosen event, clock scale, antenna path or propagation path can move every result together. Fine numerical steps do not remove that bias.

IEEE 802.15.4z-2020 identifies enhanced UWB PHYs and ranging techniques; FiRa adds an interoperability specification layer. The catalogues were inspected, not the protected normative bodies. The optional accessory remains P07-M02-UWB-TWR-v1: an HRP UWB two-way-ranging hypothesis with the exact interoperable session, channel and profile still to be selected. IEEE-UWB, FIRA.

Think about itDoes a 1 ns timestamp step imply the same distance error for one-way time and corrected round-trip time?

Answer

No. A one-way uncompensated bias maps through cΔt; an error in the corrected two-leg flight time maps through cΔt/2. A timestamp step is not itself either bias. Even ideal rounding would be a quantization model, not the whole error budget.

$\begin{aligned}d &= c t_{\mathrm{one-way}} \\ d &= \frac{c (t_{\mathrm{round}} - t_{\mathrm{turnaround}})}{2}\end{aligned}$ d is distance in metres; all t terms are seconds expressed on compatible calibrated clock scales. The second equation assumes reciprocal propagation and known responder turnaround. Use exact vacuum c = 299792458 m/s for this teaching calculation; actual propagation and hardware corrections need an uncertainty budget.

Checked timing-bias examples · derived, not UWB accuracy specifications
Defined timing error	Distance mapping	Result
+1 ns uncompensated one-way bias	c × 10⁻⁹ s	+0.299792458 m
+1 ns corrected round-trip flight-time bias	c × 10⁻⁹ s / 2	+0.149896229 m
Unknown responder turnaround	Cannot subtract a known value	Distance unavailable from this simple exchange.
1 ns timestamp resolution	Quantization convention and other errors unspecified	Accuracy unknown; resolution alone is insufficient.

Rohde & Schwarz’s public explanation places the ranging marker at the local antenna and shows why turnaround and clock errors affect two-way ranging. Your digital timestamp and R2 antenna-feed reference need a calibrated transformation; they are not automatically the same event. RS-TIME.

Common misconceptionUWB accuracy equals timestamp resolution.

Multipath can bias the selected arrival, and an enclosure changes antenna/group delay. Averaging repeated biased readings can improve precision without fixing accuracy. Require the estimator, reference distance, geometry, calibration state and error distribution.

Go deeperWhat c/B can—and cannot—tell you

Let B be an assumed effective rectangular signal bandwidth in Hz, so 1/B is an order-of-magnitude time-separation scale. For B = 500 MHz, c/B = 0.599584916 m is a one-way length scale. This is a dimensional teaching estimate, not an accuracy bound or an IEEE/FiRa threshold. Actual pulse shape, SNR, first-path estimation, geometry and bias determine performance; a two-leg convention changes the distance mapping.

Decision: add ranging only when distance is a real requirement, and budget both peers plus calibration evidence. The state-energy timeline below predicts neither UWB accuracy nor a passive tag’s read range.

06 / 10

Proximity changes coupling and energy ownership

Why can a powerless tag answer a reader, then fail when rotated or mounted on metal?

For the chosen NFC-like example, the reader’s 13.56 MHz magnetic field couples into the tag loop. The field supplies energy as well as communication. Induced voltage depends on changing magnetic flux through that loop, so orientation, spacing, loop geometry and the surrounding product matter. NFC Forum provides the frequency/role overview; ST’s tag-antenna note explains the coupled circuit and tuning. NFC-TECH, ST-LOOP.

$|v_{\mathrm{induced}}| \propto \omega N A |B_{\mathrm{normal}}|$ Illustrative small-loop, approximately uniform sinusoidal-field model. v is volts, ω = 2πf rad/s, N is turns, A is loop area in m² and B_normal is the magnetic flux-density component normal to the loop in tesla. Loaded rectifier/tag behavior requires a coupled-circuit model; this is not a read-range equation.

Checked orientation example: in that ideal uniform field, rotating the loop normal from parallel to perpendicular to the field changes the flux factor from |cos 0°| = 1 to |cos 90°| = 0. Real fields are nonuniform. A reader demonstration on a bare label therefore does not establish operation on a curved metal enclosure.

Proximity comparison · disclose the other supply
Candidate / role	How energy arrives	60 s autonomous telemetry / timing accuracy
NFC-A reader + passive Type 2 identification tag hypothesis	Reader-generated magnetic field; tag supply is harvested. Reader DC draw unknown.	Autonomous reporting: not applicable without reader presence. Precision ranging: not applicable.
Active tag / device	Has a local power source; exact radio and transmit/receive role must be specified.	Potentially applicable only with a defined protocol/service; no generic active-tag guarantee.
GS1 Gen2 passive UHF tag	Reader powers the tag; modulated backscatter returns information. Reader energy remains outside.	Periodic unattended gateway reports: not established. Precision ranging: not claimed by this example.

The current NFC program listing is Certification Release 15, authorized May 2026, with Devices Requirements 3.4. Keep the exact Type 2 operation revision and applicable tests unresolved until obtained; a test-specification version is not automatically the tag-operation version. NFC-CR15.

Common misconceptionAll RFID is an inductive near-field link.

RFID names an identification function, not one coupling regime. GS1 Gen2 v3.0.1 covers a UHF air interface with tag backscatter; its 860–930 MHz scope is not permission to transmit across that span in a particular country. A far-field UHF deployment needs reader-to-tag power and tag-to-reader return-link evidence. GS1-GEN2.

Go deeperResonance is part of the assembled product

Loop inductance, tag input capacitance and assembly parasitics form a tuned network. Material and metal proximity can shift tuning and dissipate energy; orientation changes coupling even if the impedance match looks good. Inspect the final assembly. ST’s application note is a design explanation, not measured evidence for this fictional label. ST-LOOP.

Decision: retain a passive identity label when deliberate close presentation is acceptable. Keep commissioning configuration on the selected active connection unless the product defines and verifies an NFC commissioning procedure. “Batteryless” describes where energy is obtained; it does not make the system’s energy zero.

07 / 10

Build a complete event and sleep ledger

The packet lasts less than a millisecond. Which state consumes the report’s energy?

Start with an accounting boundary: total current at a synthetic radio supply, at constant voltage. Host, sensor, regulator and battery losses are outside. This Class 1 model, short-range-mode-energy-timeline/2.0, uses fixture p07-m02-state-ledger-v1. The fixture author chose every frame and current number; none came from measured Bluetooth, Thread or UWB silicon.

D1 here means the synthetic framed bytes before raw serialization. It does not include a real standard’s coding or packet format. For payload L bytes, frame capacity M D0 bytes and overhead h bytes/frame, fragment into full M-byte pieces followed by a positive remainder, with no padding.

$\begin{aligned}n &= \operatorname{ceil}(\frac{L}{M}) \\ t_{\mathrm{TX,j}} &= \frac{8 (L_{j} + h)}{R}\end{aligned}$ n is the number of frames, L_j the D0 bytes in fragment j, R the raw serialization rate in bit/s, and t_TX,j seconds of TX per attempt. All internal values use SI. Presets keep R/M/h closed so editing the toy cannot silently manufacture a named standard mode.

Canonical A inputs · complete static / print ledger
Quantity / occurrence	Frozen value
Traffic / frames	L = 32 D0 bytes; T = 60 s; M = 80 bytes; h = 16 bytes/frame; R = 1,000,000 bit/s.
Supply / failures	V = 3 V; independent per-attempt failure p = 0.05; r = 1 maximum retry; K = r + 1 = 2 attempts.
Wake · once per report	5 ms at 3 mA → 0.015 mC.
Discovery / listening · once per report	10 ms at 6 mA → 0.060 mC. Chosen allocation; no discovery guarantee.
TX · every attempted frame	12 mA for its computed t_TX,j; default 0.384 ms.
RX / ACK-or-timeout · every attempt	1 ms at 6 mA, identical for successful and failed attempts.
Wait / turnaround · every attempt	2 ms at 2 mA, identical for successful and failed attempts.
Sleep · residual period	2 µA = 0.002 mA for T minus expected active duration.
Preset B · controlled variant	Only R = 250,000 bit/s, M = 64 bytes and h = 24 bytes change. Equal currents are assumed, not a technology benchmark.

Think about itAt 80 D0 bytes a frame is full. Does one more byte add only eight bits of TX?

Answer

No. A uses [80] at L = 80, then [80, 1] at L = 81. One attempt per fragment therefore changes transmitted bytes from 96 to 113, and total TX time from 0.768 ms to 0.904 ms. The second frame also incurs its own RX and wait overhead.

Retries are opportunities, not a fixed multiplier. Let p be the independent, identically distributed probability that an attempt fails its assigned packet-and-acknowledgement criterion. The model does not add a second independent ACK-loss event. Allow up to K attempts on each fragment, and continue attempting later fragments even after an earlier exhausted failure. That explicit teaching policy spends energy on reports that can no longer be complete.

$\begin{aligned}A(p,K)&=\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}p^k\\P_{\mathrm{fragment}}&=1-p^K\\P_{\mathrm{report}}&=(1-p^K)^n\end{aligned}$ A is expected attempts per fragment. The finite sum works at p = 0 and p = 1. P_report is eventual complete-report delivery under independence, with no discovery/deadline guarantee. Success of one fragment is not success of an n-fragment report.

Think about itOne retry is allowed. Does every fragment transmit twice, and does more retry energy always meet the deadline?

Answer

At p = 0.05 and K = 2, 95% finish after one attempt and 5% use two. A = 1.05; delivery is 99.75% for one fragment. With no retries, A = 1 and delivery falls to 95%. More attempts buy recovery under independence while consuming time and charge; actual deadline evidence is still missing.

$\begin{aligned}t_{\mathrm{active}} &= t_{\mathrm{wake}} + t_{\mathrm{discovery}} \\ &+ \sum _{j} A (t_{\mathrm{TX,j}} + t_{\mathrm{RX}} + t_{\mathrm{wait}}) \\ Q &= \sum _{\mathrm{states}} I_{\mathrm{state}} t_{\mathrm{state}} \\ E_{\mathrm{report}} &= V Q\qquad I_{\mathrm{avg}} = \frac{Q}{T}\end{aligned}$ Active durations are expected seconds per generated report. Add residual sleep t_sleep = T − t_active exactly once. With amperes and seconds Q is coulombs; with mA and seconds Q is mC and E is mJ. Constant supply voltage and serial, nonoverlapping states are assumptions.

Checked arithmetic: one default attempt lasts 0.003384 s and consumes 0.014608 mC. Weighted attempts consume 1.05 × 0.014608 = 0.0153384 mC. Expected active time is 0.0185532 s, leaving 59.9814468 s of sleep and 0.1199628936 mC of sleep charge. Wake + discovery + attempts + sleep gives 0.2103012936 mC, or 0.6309038808 mJ at 3 V. Average current is 3.50502156 µA.

Common misconceptionPayload airtime dominates energy.

Sleep is the largest default contribution because it lasts almost 60 s. Discovery is smaller than sleep but far larger than bare payload serialization: 32 bytes at 1 Mbit/s and 12 mA would use only 0.003072 mC before framing. Short TX and low sleep-current figures can both hide the actual ledger.

$t_{\mathrm{worst}} = t_{\mathrm{wake}} + t_{\mathrm{discovery}} + K \sum _{j}(t_{\mathrm{TX,j}} + t_{\mathrm{RX}} + t_{\mathrm{wait}}) \le T$ Check the maximum serial active time, not only its expectation. If it exceeds T, the schedule cannot serve every generated report under this policy. Suppress period averages/energy/day; retain per-attempt diagnostics. There is no hidden event queue or negative sleep.

Class 1 · bounded teaching interaction

Short-Range Mode Energy Timeline

Can this state hypothesis fit the report period and an illustrative 1 mJ radio-energy budget per generated report? Compare the same 32-byte service first. Then identify the evidence needed for the 99% within 2 s requirement.

short-range-mode-energy-timeline/2.0 · p07-m02-state-ledger-v1 · p07-m02-decision-rules/1.0. Frozen evaluation: 2026-09-08 UTC. A and B are synthetic frames; equal currents are an assumption.

.lesson-module__xZYhEG__controls, .lesson-module__xZYhEG__guide { display: none !important; }JavaScript is off. The complete canonical A calculation, input ledger, fragment/retry tables and chronological trace are below. Continue with the static variants, discovery, ranging, checkpoint answers and trace request in the lesson.

Predict → change one cause → explainBefore inspecting the default ledger, predict its largest charge contribution.

Keep that prediction in mind. Each guided step keeps canonical A beside the changed result. Manual experiments are available below.

Preset B changes only serialization to 250 kbit/s, the D0 frame maximum to 64 bytes and overhead to 24 bytes. Selecting either preset restores every input and metadata field. Both use the same chosen currents.

Traffic and radio supply

D0 payload / bytes1–2048 bytes; default 32.

Report period / s0.1–86400 s; default 60.

Maximum retries / retries0–10 retries; default 1.

Attempt failure probability / 0–1 ratio0–1 0–1 ratio; default 0.05.

Radio supply voltage / V1–5 V; default 3.

Edit state durations, currents and evidence

Serial active durations · milliseconds

Wake once per report / ms0–10000 ms; default 5.

Listening once per report / ms0–10000 ms; default 10.

RX / ACK-or-timeout per attempt / ms0–10000 ms; default 1.

Wait / turnaround per attempt / ms0–10000 ms; default 2.

Total current at the synthetic radio supply

TX current / mA0–200 mA; default 12.

RX current / mA0–200 mA; default 6.

Wake current / mA0–200 mA; default 3.

Listening current / mA0–200 mA; default 6.

Wait current / mA0–200 mA; default 2.

Sleep current / mA0–1 mA; default 0.002.

Product evidence state · teaching metadataNo option turns synthetic current into measured data. Overdue is evaluated at the frozen date, not the browser clock.

Result display units

Canonical synthetic preset A. Product latency and current evidence remain unknown.

Baseline and committed variant

Synthetic preset A · frame A: R = 1000000 bit/s, M = 80 D0 bytes, h = 16 bytes/frame.

Committed inputs: 32 D0 bytes; T = 60 s; V = 3 V; p = 0.05; r = 1, K = 2. Wake 5 ms; listening 10 ms; RX 1 ms and wait 2 ms per attempt. State currents appear in the ledger.

Common-basis comparison · synthetic radio supply only · scroll horizontally if needed
Quantity	Canonical A · 32 B / 60 s	Committed variant
Energy / generated report	0.630903881 mJ	0.630903881 mJ
Period-average current	3.50502156 µA	3.50502156 µA
Complete-report delivery · no deadline prediction	99.75%	99.75%
Worst active time	21.768 ms	21.768 ms
Dominant period charge	Sleep	Sleep

Serial schedule fits

S01 · Worst-case serial schedule fits the period.
E01 · At or below the illustrative 1 mJ/generated-report screen.
D01 · Eventual complete-report probability reaches 99% under the independent-attempt assumptions.
L01 · Delivery within 2 s remains unknown: discovery, association, queues and site-dependent losses are not predicted.
V01 · Illustrative assumptions; review due 2026-12-07. No measured product evidence.

Frames and finite attempts

Fragment accounting · one attempt per fragment · scroll horizontally if needed
Fragment	D0 bytes	Header bytes	D1 bytes	TX time	Attempt time / charge
1	32	16	48	0.384 ms	3.384 ms / 0.014608 mC

Expected attempts per fragment A = 1.05. Fragment delivery = 99.75%; complete report = 99.75%. Later fragments are attempted even after an earlier fragment exhausts its retries.

Attempt count distribution · per fragment, final row includes exhausted failures
Attempts used	Probability	Delivered at this attempt	Exhausted failure
1	0.95	0.95	0
2	0.05	0.0475	0.0025

One chronological first attempt

A possible sequence through the first attempt; success or failure can follow. Scroll horizontally on narrow screens; the table provides every value. This is not an oscilloscope measurement or an expected-duration waveform. Zero-duration states have no width. Dashed segments distinguish alternating states.

First-fragment trace alternative · order is chronological
State	Duration	Radio supply current
Wake	5 ms	3000 µA
Listen	10 ms	6000 µA
TX 1	0.384 ms	12000 µA
RX 1	1 ms	6000 µA
Wait 1	2 ms	2000 µA

Expected duration and charge ledger

These are weighted state totals over generated reports, not simultaneous currents or a realizable trace. Residual sleep completes exactly one period.

Expected state ledger · full precision retained internally · scroll horizontally if needed
State	Expected duration	State current	Expected charge
Wake	5 ms	3000 µA	0.015 mC
Discovery / listen	10 ms	6000 µA	0.06 mC
TX · all fragments	0.4032 ms	12000 µA	0.0048384 mC
RX / ACK-or-timeout	1.05 ms	6000 µA	0.0063 mC
Wait / turnaround	2.1 ms	2000 µA	0.0042 mC
Sleep	59981.4468 ms	2 µA	0.119962894 mC

Period readout · rounding only for display
Quantity	Committed result
Expected active / sleep	18.5532 ms / 59981.4468 ms
Event charge excluding sleep	0.0903384 mC
Period charge	0.210301294 mC
TX on-time / active fraction of period	0.000672% / 0.030922%
Energy / generated report	0.630903881 mJ
Energy / delivered report, including failures	0.632485094 mJ
Long-run energy / day	908.501588352 mJ per day
Period-average current	3.50502156 µA
Dominant charge state	Sleep
Actual deadline / battery life / ranging accuracy	Unknown / not modeled / not modeled

Displayed engineering units: 1 s = 1000 ms; 1 A = 1000 mA = 10⁶ µA; 1 C = 1000 mC; 1 J = 1000 mJ. SI view changes presentation only. Up to 9 engineering-unit decimals / 12 SI decimals; very small values use scientific notation. Decisions use unrounded numbers. Anchor tolerances: 10⁻¹⁰ s, 10⁻⁹ mC/mJ, 10⁻¹² probability.

Discovery assumptions are a different model

The radio ledger’s listening duration is not a discovery interval or a discovery guarantee. Explore an ideal schedule separately; these controls never change radio energy.

Advertisement interval assumption / ms

Observer schedule assumption

Ideal waiting: [0, 100) ms; mean 50 ms. Uniform arrival phase, continuous observer, negligible packet duration, no loss or collisions. This waiting estimate excludes association and delivery.

Read the counterexamples without running the interaction

Static controlled variants · calculated from the same fixture · scroll horizontally if needed
Variant	Frames / A	Complete report probability	Energy / generated report	Average current / dominant state
A · default	1 / 1.05	0.9975	0.630903881 mJ	3.50502156 µA / Sleep
A · no retries	1 / 1	0.95	0.628713696 mJ	3.492853867 µA / Sleep
A · no failures	1 / 1	1	0.628713696 mJ	3.492853867 µA / Sleep
A · all attempts fail	1 / 2	0	0.672517392 mJ	3.736207733 µA / Sleep
A · 80 D0 bytes	1 / 1.05	0.9975	0.645416662 mJ	3.58564812 µA / Sleep
A · 81 D0 bytes	2 / 1.05	0.99500625	0.682037705 mJ	3.78909836 µA / Sleep
A · discovery 1 s	1 / 1.05	0.9975	18.444963881 mJ	102.47202156 µA / Discovery / listen
A · period 120 s	1 / 1.05	0.9975	0.990903881 mJ	2.75251078 µA / Sleep

Discovery at 1 s contributes 6 mC while removing 0.99 s from sleep. Doubling T to 120 s leaves the default event charge excluding sleep at 0.0903384 mC; average current approaches the 2 µA floor under these fixed assumptions. If an edited active current is below sleep current, a longer active allocation can instead reduce charge. Do not impose unconditional monotonicity.

Go deeperWhy energy per delivered report includes failures

Over many independent generated reports, average total energy per successful report is E_report / P_report, including energy spent on reports that failed. At zero delivery it is unavailable, not zero. The long-run day rate is 86400 E_report / T: default 908.501588352 mJ/day. A finite day’s exact count depends on start phase. Battery life requires usable capacity, voltage, self-discharge, temperature, peak-current, regulator and host models; this lesson does not predict it.

Decision: use the ledger to identify which state assumption deserves measurement. The synthetic energy screen can reject a hypothesis under its assumptions; it cannot select a certified or field-proven technology.

08 / 10

Discovery and crowded spectrum change service

Can ten milliseconds of listening guarantee discovery within two seconds?

Only a schedule can establish which transmission is heard. In an ideal one-way exercise, advertisements repeat every T_adv seconds, the observer listens continuously, arrival phase is uniform, packets have negligible duration, and nothing collides or is lost. Waiting W then lies in [0, T_adv), with mean T_adv/2.

$T_{\mathrm{adv}} = 0.100 s \Rightarrow 0 \le W < 0.100 s\qquad E[W] = 0.050 s$ Derived ideal discovery waiting only. W excludes association, queues, application transfer and retries. The interval’s upper endpoint is exclusive under the negligible-duration assumption.

Missed-window counterexample · deterministic illustrative schedule
Element	Times from an arbitrary shared origin	Consequence
Observer windows	[0, 10), [100, 110), [200, 210) ms; repeat every 100 ms.	10% scanning duty.
Advertisements	50, 150, 250 ms; repeat every 100 ms, negligible duration.	Every advertisement falls outside a scan window.
Observed discovery	No overlap in the stated schedule.	The 10% duty fraction alone yields no discovery probability or deadline guarantee.

A random advertising delay or a changed scan phase may break this repeated miss, but requires a different timing model. Channel changes, finite observation windows and lost packets add conditions. Unknown phases do not authorize inventing a success probability from duty fraction.

Now place the node near a busy gateway. A hidden interferer may be audible at the receiver but not the transmitter. Clear-channel assessment at one location cannot prove the receiver is clear; burst interference can correlate repeated failures. Hopping or adaptation can offer another resource, but only in a mode that supports and actually uses it. One scalar p hides these time, frequency and spatial conditions.

Common misconceptionRetries turn any crowded channel into reliable service.

The finite-attempt model assumes independent failures. A persistent collision or deep fade can defeat all attempts together. More retries may consume the deadline and worsen congestion. Measure conditional attempt outcomes, queue timing and D0 completion before using the toy probability as a service forecast.

Go deeperA source question before a regional channel plan

A sub-GHz variant needs its exact PHY, alliance release, supported hardware, antenna, regional parameters and current national applicability. Do not translate the CSA optional-feature announcement or the Gen2 frequency scope into a legal channel/power table. Path 09 owns that determination; this lesson carries the unresolved market question.

Decision: preserve unresolved latency on the card. Request actual advertisement/scan or association/connection timing with the current trace, and assess mounted D0 performance separately from radio event energy.

09 / 10

Fit the radio and antenna into the product

What happens to the chosen mode when its antenna shares a small enclosure with the machine?

A PHY decision becomes a product decision at the antenna feed and in space. Electrical size depends on wavelength: λ = c/f in the chosen free-space approximation. At 2.4 GHz λ is about 0.125 m; at 13.56 MHz it is about 22.1 m. A centimetre-scale NFC loop is electrically small and operates here by deliberate close magnetic coupling. Those wavelength estimates are not antenna dimensions or range predictions.

Integration burden on the same mounted node · evidence required
Selected role	Physical concern	Discriminating evidence
LE / 2.4 GHz Thread leaf	Ground current, enclosure, machine proximity and orientation change efficiency and spatial pattern.	Installed impedance plus efficiency/pattern and gateway D0 service by mounting stratum.
Shared 2.4 GHz antenna	Switch/filter loss, isolation and concurrent-radio scheduling; both receivers can be blocked locally.	Per-path feed loss at R1↔R2 and coexistence tests for actual radio combinations.
UWB accessory	Frequency-dependent antenna/group delay and multipath affect timing as well as signal strength.	Calibrated delay convention plus range-error distribution in declared geometry.
NFC loop / passive identity	Flux orientation, detuning and loss near metal or assembly materials.	Reader/tag operation on the final enclosure; router antenna gain is not applicable to this coupling model.
UHF passive label	Tag mounting/orientation changes harvested power and returned backscatter.	Forward power and return-link/read evidence; a node DC-current trace is not a read-range test.

Use the established planes: D0 payload → D1 framed/coded bits → R1 component RF port → feed/match → R2 antenna-feed plane → S0 spatial channel → R2-RX → receiver chain → R3 decision boundary → gateway D0. R1-TX/RX and R2-TX/RX are directional aliases. Count each feed loss once; R3 is never an antenna input.

Common misconceptionA good match proves the installed radio is efficient.

A low reflected-power fraction can coexist with absorption in a lossy structure. Matching, radiation efficiency, pattern and diversity answer different questions. Similarly, radio DC energy is not RF output power, conducted power is not EIRP, and a period average is not on-time power.

Go deeperTwo radios need an availability budget too

Antenna sharing can save space while preventing simultaneous transmit/receive operation. Isolation, front-end settling and arbitration can add states or missed discovery windows. Redraw the schedule and revise the state ledger when a shared-antenna policy changes; do not just add a feed-loss number.

Decision: take the mode hypotheses back to the installed-product antenna model and antenna measurement and link reality. Preserve inherited antenna fixture IDs as earlier evidence with their original conditions, not measurements of the new technology.

10 / 10

Choose modes and the next current trace

Which modes should the team investigate—and which single trace would change the decision?

For normal telemetry, investigate a direct connected LE Peripheral first where the mains gateway is compatible and reachable. Retain a Thread sleepy end device as the second candidate where powered parents/routers and the required IP connection already belong to the product. The deciding evidence is service and state behavior in the actual installation.

Two telemetry candidates · identical D0 service, no synthetic technology ranking · scroll horizontally if needed
Criterion	P07-M02-LE-CONN-v1	P07-M02-THREAD-SED-v1
Common requirement	32 B / 60 s; ≥99% complete within 2 s in each site/mounting stratum.	Same payload, interval, endpoint, statistic and mounting strata.
Selected identity	Core 6.2 LE 1M connection; GATT/private schema; update impact open.	Thread 1.4.1 identity to verify; selected 2.4 GHz O-QPSK sleepy-leaf hypothesis; private application.
Node role / power	Peripheral; connection maintenance and reconnect trace unknown.	Nonrouting sleepy leaf; polling, parent interaction and reattach trace unknown.
External infrastructure	Compatible powered Central/gateway and application logs.	Powered parent/routers; IP border router when crossing networks; application gateway/logs.
Mesh forwarding by this node	Not applicable: direct connection.	Not applicable: this candidate is a nonrouting leaf.
Autonomous passive ID / precision ranging	Not applicable to the selected telemetry mode.	Not applicable to the selected telemetry mode.
Actual energy and 2 s service	Unknown; toy A is not a Bluetooth measurement.	Unknown; toy B is not a Thread measurement.
Qualification / CH market	Separate open design/test and product-applicability questions.	Separate open alliance/dependency and product-applicability questions.

Choose operator-triggered LE discovery then a connection for commissioning, subject to the actual service/security design. A passive NFC label can supplement identification while the battery is absent. Keep UWB as an optional ranging accessory only after setting an error statistic and verifying peer/profile support. Reject an always-listening battery router for this 32-byte/60-second requirement: its illustrative 1080 mJ receive allocation per minute overwhelms the local 1 mJ/report screen before routing TX is counted.

Prediction for the next experiment: maintaining a connection could remove the toy’s repeated discovery cost, yet add maintenance activity the toy omits. The useful trace must contain both initial association and the quiet intervals between reports. A cropped TX pulse cannot settle that tradeoff.

Request SR-TRACE-01

One discriminating current trace · execution belongs to Path 08
Required context	Concrete request / interpretation
ID / owners	SR-TRACE-01 · lab owner with firmware owner; illustrative request, not a measurement.
Supply boundary	3.000 V at the radio module DC input, total module current. Document whether host runs on that rail. External sensor, upstream regulator and battery remain outside until separately measured.
Firmware / mode	Record exact board, firmware hash, Core 6.2 LE 1M Peripheral/Central capabilities, ATT/LL limits, connection parameters, TX setting and antenna configuration for P07-M02-LE-CONN-v1. Unknown until frozen.
Traffic / timing	32 D0 bytes released every 60 s; record all framing/schema fields. One continuous 30-minute trace (30 report releases), including connection maintenance between reports.
Discovery / association	Start unassociated with the gateway already listening. Include initial discovery and association, then steady connected operation. Record scan/advertising windows and any reconnect. The synthetic 10 ms every-report allocation is the hypothesis to replace.
Acknowledgement / retries	Log actual Link Layer retransmissions and application D0 receipt separately. Declare retry limits/timeouts; never assume the toy one-retry policy is firmware behavior.
Temperature / trigger	25 °C illustrative nominal condition; log actual temperature and supply tolerance. Trigger at radio enable with synchronized GPIO/D0 release and packet timestamps.
What overturns the assumption?	A missing maintenance/reconnect state, event charge unlike 0.0903384 mC, sleep unlike 2 µA, discovery unlike 10 ms, or association outside the deadline invalidates that assumption. More than 1 mJ/generated report rejects the local energy screen at this boundary. One nominal trace cannot establish 99% in every site stratum.

The trace changes an energy hypothesis under its stated conditions. Separately synchronize gateway D0 logs and design a representative trial for the 99%/2 s service claim. Qualification and market review keep their own owners. A current trace cannot close those evidence gaps.

Go deeperKeep a decision conditional without making it vague

A useful decision says which mode, which service, which infrastructure and which observation would overturn it. “Bluetooth is low power” supplies none of those. The card below retains unknowns explicitly and names a next owner; changing a mode creates a new variant instead of rewriting the previous evidence.

Carry the evidence card forward

p07-technology-evidence-card-v1 · complete local snapshot
Field	Declared evidence / next question
Variant / owner	P07-M02-LE-CONN-v1 · RF systems owner
Inherited IDs	P07-M01-LE-EXT-v1 · p06-evidence-map-v1 · M01-A · M01-B-LOSS · M01-INSTALL-UNKNOWN
Scenario / service	Illustrative fixed, mounted condition-monitoring node and mains-powered gateway; separate operator commissioning and optional ranging. 32 D0 bytes every 60 s; at least 99% complete reports at gateway D0 within 2 s in each declared mounting/orientation/site stratum. Teaching requirement, not achieved performance.
Family / exact mode	Bluetooth LE connected candidate. Earlier generic 2.450 GHz QPSK and P07-M01-LE-EXT-v1 remain unchanged prior variants. Core 6.2, LE 1M connected Peripheral to gateway Central; GATT notification hypothesis, private sensor schema (no adopted sensor profile). Separate legacy ADV_IND discovery then connection for commissioning. Core update 28108 clause impact unresolved.
Band / region / class	2.4 GHz; CH candidate market. Conducted power, antenna, power class, final device category and applicability unknown.
D0 / latency definition	256 bit; 60 s period; 2 s deadline. Node D0 release to complete gateway D0 delivery; duplicates count once, missing and late reports miss the deadline. Gateway backhaul is outside this endpoint.
PHY / MAC resources	LE 1M; actual ATT MTU, Link Layer data length, connection interval, latency, channel map, notification schema and application receipt policy unknown. Synthetic frames A/B are not substitutes.
Actual states	wake / encode: duration unknown; current unknown; initial discovery / association: duration unknown; current unknown; connection maintenance: duration unknown; current unknown; TX: duration unknown; current unknown; RX / acknowledgement: duration unknown; current unknown; wait: duration unknown; current unknown; sleep: duration unknown; current unknown
Antenna / RF interfaces	D0 application → D1 framed/coded bits → R1-TX component port → feed/match → R2-TX antenna feed → S0 spatial channel → R2-RX → receive chain → R3 receiver decisions → gateway D0. Directional aliases map to portfolio R1/R2; each loss counted once. No loss, EIRP or OTA result asserted.
Infrastructure / second candidate	Mains gateway with compatible Central, GATT/schema and D0 logs. Candidate 2, P07-M02-THREAD-SED-v1: Thread 1.4.1 identity to verify, 2.4 GHz O-QPSK sleepy end device; powered parent/routers and an IP border router when crossing networks. Private application service; Matter is not assumed.
Qualification question	Bluetooth design/layers, inherited QPRD v5 questions, ICS/TCRL and test plan unresolved; Thread candidate needs its own exact dependencies, certification scope and support evidence.
Market question	Compliance owner must resolve the final CH product and every enabled radio separately. An alliance release or qualification listing supplies no market authorization.
Claim-level provenance	C-LE-MODE: Bounded definitions read; implementation unknown. BT-RF BT-LL BT-GATT C-THREAD-ROLE: Identity plus informative role explanation; normative dependencies unread. THREAD-ID THREAD-ROLES IEEE-LR TI-PHY C-STATE-ENERGY: Derived from illustrative p07-m02-state-ledger-v1 only; product trace unknown. C-D0-DEADLINE: Unknown; mounted D0 service trial required. C-PROGRAM-MARKET: Open program / market questions; no compliance conclusion. BT-STATUS BT-QUAL
Uncertainty	Actual supply trace, host/sensor/regulator energy, gateway capability, association frequency, traffic correlations, antenna installation and representative service confidence unknown.
Decision	Investigate connected LE for direct gateway telemetry and a Thread sleepy leaf where powered infrastructure exists. Operator-triggered LE commissioning; NFC identification optional. UWB accessory only if distance becomes a real requirement. Reject a battery node as an always-listening router for this service.
Next evidence / owner	Lab owner and firmware owner: request trace SR-TRACE-01 for the connected LE hypothesis; use observed states to replace synthetic assumptions. Systems owner separately owns D0 service and site statistics.
Review date / trigger	2026-12-07; 2026-12-07 or change in standards/update, mode, firmware, antenna/enclosure, gateway, mounting, service or market; whichever comes first.

Ungraded review

Check your understanding

Answer each question in your own words, then reveal the model answer.

01Who pays when a sleepy leaf receives an infrequent command?
Model answer
A parent or Friend holds the message while the leaf sleeps, and powered infrastructure listens/routes. Add that equipment’s separately bounded energy and availability. The leaf’s low average current does not mean it supplies routing.
02What changes between 80 and 81 D0 bytes in preset A?
Model answer
80 uses one frame with 16 overhead bytes: 96 transmitted bytes and 0.768 ms. 81 uses [80, 1], two headers: 113 bytes and 0.904 ms. It also adds an RX/wait allocation per attempted second frame. This is a synthetic framing boundary.
03At p = 0.05 and one retry, how many attempts and deliveries should you expect?
Model answer
K = 2. Expected attempts per fragment are 1 + 0.05 = 1.05, not two. One-fragment delivery is 1 − 0.05² = 0.9975. Two-fragment report delivery is 0.9975² = 0.99500625 under independence and the declared continue-after-failure policy.
04Does the default sleep current or discovery state dominate charge?
Model answer
Sleep contributes 0.1199628936 mC over 59.9814468 s, exceeding discovery’s 0.060 mC. Yet discovery greatly exceeds payload TX alone. Changing discovery to 1 s makes its 6 mC dominant and shortens residual sleep.
05Why does a 1 ns corrected round-trip bias map to about 15 cm?
Model answer
The corrected flight time includes two propagation legs, so distance bias is cΔt/2 = 0.149896229 m. A one-way bias uses cΔt = 0.299792458 m. Turnaround, clock, antenna and multipath biases need separate treatment.
06Which mode can you select from the synthetic energy winner?
Model answer
None on that evidence alone. Retain connected LE when the direct gateway supports the exact mode, and Thread sleepy-leaf telemetry where powered routing exists. Obtain real state/packet/D0 evidence and check the document chain. Neither low calculated energy nor catalogue identity proves the 2 s deadline, qualification or market access.

References and further study

Read the scope with the source

Sources below were accessed on 2026-09-08 UTC. Review is due 2026-12-07 or earlier when a mode, source, program or product condition changes. Document type, claim support and applicability remain separate. Catalogue-only access establishes identity/scope; it does not establish unread requirements. Synthetic numbers originate in this lesson’s fixture, not in these documents.

BT-RF · Bluetooth SIG: Core Specification, Radio Physical Layer. 6.2; Adopted; catalogue checked 2026-09-08. Read: Vol 6 A §1. Normative text read. LE 1M mandatory; optional 2M, Coded and Channel Sounding distinctions. Limit: No selected chip capability, antenna performance or product range inferred.
BT-LL · Bluetooth SIG: Core Specification, Link Layer. 6.2; Adopted; checked 2026-09-08. Read: Vol 6 B §§2.4, 4.5.1, 4.6. Normative text read. Data PDU payload boundary, connection events and feature support. Limit: Negotiated implementation limits remain unknown; synthetic M/h are unrelated.
BT-GATT · Bluetooth SIG: Generic Attribute Profile. Core 6.2; Adopted; checked 2026-09-08. Read: Vol 3 G §4.10, §4.10.1. Normative text read. Notification procedure at the attribute layer. Limit: No adopted condition-monitoring profile or application receipt guarantee.
BT-STATUS · Bluetooth SIG: Core 6.2 catalogue / update notice. 6.2; Update 28108 notice; Status checked 2026-09-08. Read: Adopted status and required-update notice. Catalogue / notice. Selected legacy identity retained; Core 6.3 also appears in the current index. Limit: Update body not obtained; clause impact and compliance unresolved.
BT-QUAL · Bluetooth SIG: Qualify your product. Live overview; No revision date shown; accessed 2026-09-08. Read: Qualification overview. Informative program overview. Qualification is a distinct product evidence task. Limit: Inherited QPRD v5 questions stay open; no new test-plan or legal determination.
BT-MESH · Bluetooth SIG: Bluetooth Mesh Networking Primer. Web edition; Accessed 2026-09-08; Mesh Protocol 1.1.1 adopted in catalogue. Read: §§4.18.1–4.18.2, 4.19. Informative first-party explanation. Relay, Friend and Low Power roles; managed flooding / directed forwarding. Limit: Mesh Protocol body not obtained; no normative feature or NLC profile conformance claim.
IEEE-LR · IEEE SA: IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks. 802.15.4-2024; Active catalogue status checked 2026-09-08. Read: Title / scope / status. Catalogue only. PHY/MAC family identity. Limit: Normative body unread; no 2024 clause or mandatory threshold asserted.
TI-PHY · Texas Instruments: CC2520 datasheet. SWRS068; December 2007. Read: Title; §3 features; modulator discussion. Informative vendor implementation example. Legacy 2.4 GHz 250 kbit/s, 2 Mchip/s O-QPSK/DSSS example. Limit: Historical explanatory example; no currents imported, no current procurement or normative 2024 claim.
THREAD-ID · Thread Group: Thread Specification request page. 1.4.1; Identity checked 2026-09-08; publication date not shown. Read: Page title and request form / EULA. Catalogue / access page. Version to request for the new candidate. Limit: Full specification not obtained. Exact implementation dependencies and conformance remain inspect.
THREAD-ROLES · Thread Group: Typical Thread Network Topologies. Web edition; Accessed 2026-09-08. Read: Thread Routing; End Devices; Border Router. Informative first-party explanation. Routing/end-device roles and IP border connectivity. Limit: Does not establish a selected application profile, topology reliability or current.
THREAD-14 · Thread Group: Thread 1.4 Features White Paper. 1.0; 2024-09-04. Read: Introduction; §3.5 TCAT. Informative white paper. TCAT-over-Bluetooth LE as a conditional commissioning option. Limit: Not evidence that every Thread device supports BLE; 1.4.1 dependency details unread.
CSA-ZIGBEE · Connectivity Standards Alliance: Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi announcement. Zigbee 4.0; 2025-11-18. Read: Release announcement; optional Suzi features. Informative release announcement. Current ecosystem identity and regional sub-GHz questions. Limit: Specification body unread; do not transfer optional band support to Thread or every Zigbee device.
IEEE-UWB · IEEE SA: Enhanced UWB PHYs and Associated Ranging Techniques. 802.15.4z-2020, Amendment 1; 2020; catalogue checked 2026-09-08. Read: Title / scope. Catalogue only. UWB amendment identity; baseline relationship to 802.15.4. Limit: No normative ranging threshold or full-body access claimed.
FIRA · FiRa Consortium: Technical specifications / access catalogue. Live catalogue; exact interoperable profile unresolved; Accessed 2026-09-08. Read: PHY / MAC specification descriptions and access terms. Informative catalogue. Alliance adds interoperability specifications to the IEEE UWB foundation. Limit: Restricted specification bodies unread; session/channel/profile support unknown.
RS-TIME · Rohde & Schwarz: High Rate Pulse Ultrawideband Physical Layer Testing and Certification. 01.00, Yong Shi; January 2024 hosting path; title page gives version, not publication date. Read: §§6–6.1, pp. 26–27; title page. Informative vendor white paper. Ranging marker convention, turnaround correction and clock-error dependence. Limit: Exact vacuum c is a chosen teaching constant; no device accuracy or complete estimator predicted.
NFC-TECH · NFC Forum: NFC Technology. Live overview; Accessed 2026-09-08. Read: Frequency and operating-mode overview. Informative first-party explanation. 13.56 MHz and field-powered proximity roles. Limit: No generic read distance inferred from overview ranges.
NFC-CR15 · NFC Forum: Certification Release 15. CR15; Devices Requirements 3.4; Authorized May 2026. Read: Release summary and test-specification list. Program release listing. Current program question for NFC-A reader / Type 2 tag candidate. Limit: Type 2 operation revision, complete applicable tests and actual device support unresolved; a test-spec revision is not a tag-operation revision.
ST-LOOP · STMicroelectronics: How to design a 13.56 MHz customized antenna for ST25 NFC / RFID tags. AN2866 Rev 6; September 2025. Read: Introduction; §§1–3, 5. Informative application note. Magnetic coupling, tag resonance and assembly/material effects. Limit: No proposed coil dimensions, guaranteed range or extracted product values.
GS1-GEN2 · GS1: EPC Radio-Frequency Identity Generation-2 UHF RFID Standard. 3.0.1; Ratified February 2026. Read: §6.3.1.1; §§6.3.1.3.1–6.3.1.3.2. Normative text read. 860–930 MHz standard scope and modulated tag backscatter. Limit: Scope is not a national allocation. No reader power, range or device certification inferred.

Original diagrams and arithmetic are derived teaching artifacts, not copied standards figures or measured data. Model/fixture: short-range-mode-energy-timeline/2.0 / p07-m02-state-ledger-v1. Rules: p07-m02-decision-rules/1.0. No browser date, stored progress or live radio API changes the examples.