I zeroed in on this dilemma earlier in this thread, when I questioned how the contiguity test would be applied. My "common sense" told me that any "appendage contiguity test" would ONLY make sense if it was applied EXCLUSIVELY to ONLY those portions of a
deploying appendage that were progressively crossing and occupying the OUTSIDE SPACE of the boundary of the frame perimeter.
The only portions of a robot component that can be considered or evaluated as an appendage, are those portions which HAVE EXTENDED BEYOND the frame perimeter, and their contiguity assessment CANNOT consider ANY PORTION of the(se) component(s) that REMAINS INSIDE the frame perimeter -- only what PROTRUDES BEYOND.
The reason that the contiguity test "path" COULD NOT be allowed to be traced crossing back INSIDE of the frame perimeter, is that,
since all parts of a robot are normally contiguous to the robot inself, there has to be an imaginary demarcation PLANE to merely establish the concept of discontinuity. It is then in relation to this demarcation plane of the frame perimeter that we can evaluate the contiguity of what has protruded beyond it.
This was how I came up with the
lightsaber test concept, that artdutra04 has so nicely illustrated in the image below:
I like the suggestion that no appendage be assessed for contiguity until it contacts the field, field elements, or an item (non-robot) that is in contact with the field or field elements. Otherwise, LEGAL appendages have just become a whole lot less capable than what we thought they could be!
-RRLedford