leaderobot.com reports call for case studies for the “2026 China Robot Development Yearbook”

On November 4, 2026, leaderobot.com published an article about a call for case studies for the “2026 China Robot Development Yearbook.”

The article’s publication confirms a move to compile industry information through a call for yearbook case studies. However, editing and compiling information does not independently substantiate individual companies’ performance or robots’ operating records. Users of the material need to check the types of evidence and measurement conditions.

When reading an article about a call for yearbook case studies, it is important to distinguish the editing and compilation of industry information from the degree to which the information included has been verified. The fact that information is gathered in an annual publication does not mean that individual figures or robot operating records have been independently confirmed. The convenience of having records in one place and the evidentiary strength of those records are separate considerations. We have published an article about a proposed metric for measuring robot activity: Zhiyuan proposes “Worken,” a metric for robot activity, leaderobot.com reports. What can be confirmed there is the proposed metric’s formula; the article does not establish its definition, measurement method or application to pricing. The same applies to compilations such as yearbooks: a metric’s name alone is not enough to determine whether comparisons are valid. Readers need to check whether measurement conditions and scope are provided. We also covered the publication of an opinion piece on computing resources for embodied AI in leaderobot.com publishes opinion piece on computing resources for embodied AI. Publishing an opinion piece does not mean its views have been independently verified. When compiling materials, it is important not to treat opinion pieces, company announcements, third-party reporting and primary sources showing operational activity as equivalent, but to make the type of evidence identifiable. Likewise, humanoid.guide reports developments concerning AgiBot’s revenue and humanoid shipments, which we covered, was secondary reporting that did not include primary sources in the materials provided. Reports on revenue or shipments and evidence of operations in real-world settings describe different facts. For comparison materials, what matters is not only the size of the figures, but also whether readers can trace who made the announcement, the period covered, the accounting or measurement method, and the availability of primary sources. The information a yearbook selects and the standards it uses to do so are relevant to assessing its usefulness. The article alone does not establish its editorial standards or verification procedures. See the original source for details.