[RRLedford]

As I see it the uncertainty that needs clarification is the spatial location within which the 'contiguous" test will be applied. If the contiguous test is applied ONLY to what protrudes beyond the robot, then a forked appendage would be in immediate violation at the moment the two or more "tines" crossed the edge perimeter plane, since at that moment they are not contiguous within the space outside the edge of the robot.

By this interpretation, only if the fork tines stayed connected (or at least touching) at their tips until the fork's base broke the perimeter, and only at that point they separated to desired positions, would "contiguousness" be maintained OUTSIDE the perimeter at all stages of appendage deployment.

If the contiguous test allows tracing "contiguity" back inward past the outside perimeter of the bot, that would not make much sense, since EVERY SINGLE component of the robot will ALWAYS be contiguous with every other piece, assuming that parts merely being in contact satisfies the contiguous test.

Since the entire robot is always 100% contiguous with itself, the mere use of the term "contiguous" for appendage testing TOTALLY IMPLIES that that it is meant to be applied ONLY to the portion(s) of the appendage that protrudes from the bot, and applied ONLY to what is occuping the SPACE BEYOND the perimeter.

It is only by delimiting the SPACE that the bot occupies, into an inside of and an outside of the perimeter, that any portion of the robot can ever be considered as "dis-contiguous," based on its relation to the "CUTTING PLANE" of the perimeter.

Imagine a Star Wars lightsabres cutting arcs to match the vertical edge perimeter of your bot. If an appendage starts to deploy, and at any time throughout its maximum of 14" horizontal motion the lightsaber can cut it off, such that TWO OR MORE PIECES fall on the floor, then the appendage probably fails the contiguous-outside-the perimeter test.

-RRLedford