Collaborative robots require explicit guidance on how humans and machines share a workspace safely. ISO/TS 15066 provides that focus, offering guidance on how to design and operate cobots and manage human–robot interactions. It outlines risk assessment approaches and practical safety measures for collaborative work, including modes of collaboration such as hand-guiding, speed and separation monitoring, and power and force limiting. This standard complements the broader industrial robot safety framework by specifically addressing how humans and robots interact in shared spaces. The other standards address different topics: ISO 9001 is about quality management systems, and ISO/TS 16949 relates to automotive industry quality management. ISO 10218-1 covers general safety requirements for industrial robots, but ISO/TS 15066 is the one that directly targets collaboration with people and the specifics of human–robot interaction.

The key idea is that a Dual Safety Check design uses two independent safety paths so a fault in one path can’t allow unsafe operation. An Emergency Stop control is the primary human-initiated mechanism to bring a robot or cell to an immediate halt, so it belongs in this dual-path safety framework. Including the E-stop ensures there is a guaranteed, hard stop accessible to the operator, and it is wired or integrated so that pressing it affects both safety channels or is recognized by the safety logic as a stop command no matter what state the other parts of the system are in. This alignment preserves the purpose of having two safety checks: a single fault won’t defeat the ability to stop safely. Therefore, the statement is true.

The Handling Tool Application defines how the robot uses its end effector to perform the manipulation task. It specifies the function of the robot within that handling operation—what the tool should do, how it should grip, move, orient, and release the part, and how I/O and tool motions are coordinated for the handling task. This focuses on the tool’s role in the operation itself, rather than where the overall program is stored or how diagnostics and communications are handled. For example, in a pick-and-place cycle, the Handling Tool Application governs the gripper action, tool approach, and release sequence, aligning with the specific handling function the robot must perform.

A safety case is a structured argument, supported by evidence, that a system is acceptably safe for its intended use. It typically includes hazard analysis to identify what could go wrong, the risk reduction measures that lower either the likelihood or severity of those hazards, verification and validation activities that show the system meets safety requirements and behaves as intended, and operational experience that provides real-world data on performance and any residual risk. The other options focus on business analysis, manufacturing instructions, or marketing materials, which do not constitute the evidence-based safety justification that a safety case provides.