AgiBot showcases operational cases at import expo; reported effective intelligent working hours exceed 62,000

leaderobot.com reported on November 6, 2026, that AgiBot showcased robot operations at the 9th China International Import Expo. The company said effective intelligent working hours (Worken) had exceeded 62,000 cumulatively as of October 2026, according to the article. The exhibition featured the Genie G2 performing assembly work and serving tea, the Expedition A3 series interacting with visitors, and the Lingxi X2 providing guidance.

The cumulative figure of more than 62,000 hours reported by leaderobot.com is a Worken value, which AgiBot positions as a measure of work hours after deployment—not shipments or production volume. In one hospital example, autonomous operation totaled 170 hours, compared with 153 effective working hours. Clear calculation criteria are important when deployment sites assess operating time and effective time separately.

The figure of more than 62,000 cumulative hours is presented as a measure of work performed after deployment, not the number of robots shipped or movements demonstrated at the exhibition. The article describes Worken as being calculated from three factors: the scale of operating equipment, autonomous working hours and task-completion efficiency. However, the article is secondary reporting, and the information provided does not allow independent verification of the detailed calculation method or the scope of equipment and work included. The cumulative figure should therefore be treated as an AgiBot metric, not as independently verified operational performance. Individual deployment examples also need to be distinguished from the total. According to the article, the Lingxi X2 performed guidance duties at Peking University People's Hospital, operating autonomously for 170 hours in October 2026, of which 153 hours were counted as effective intelligent working hours. The scope of this single robot performing one task differs from that of a cumulative figure that appears to cover multiple settings. Comparing the two requires checking whether they use consistent definitions for the number of operating robots, the period covered, task acceptance criteria and efficiency evaluation methods. Demonstrations at an exhibition also do not directly show the volume of routine on-site operations. This issue is also connected to our previous coverage of how to evaluate robots. In Zhiyuan proposes Worken, a measure of robot utilization, leaderobot.com reports, we noted that the metric's definition and measurement methods, as well as its application to pricing, could not be confirmed. The current article reports on cases at hospitals and factories, along with aggregate figures, but the question of publishing measurement criteria remains. Meanwhile, the number of tasks discussed in Zhiyuan ends 24-hour store livestream; six robots complete 1,730 tasks is a different metric from Worken, which is based on time. The key question is whether there is a common definition that allows comparisons without conflating task counts, operating hours and task quality. At a Longcheer Technology production line cited in the article, the Genie G2 is said to handle material loading and unloading and assist with inspections. This can be read as a case connecting standardized, repetitive work to a metric, rather than merely an exhibition demonstration. However, the article does not say how many robots operated, how often they ran, or how task quality and human intervention were counted. Points to verify include Worken's calculation specifications, the denominator used for utilization rates, the duration of operations at each site, and methods for validating task quality. Whether the cumulative figure can serve as a metric for comparing productivity across different sites and models depends on disclosure of these definitions.