Security Robot Incident: Protocol for KRITIS Operators

A security incident at the perimeter of a KRITIS site is not a technical detail. It is a process subject to documentation duties, with deadlines, mandatory fields, and personal liability of the security manager. This article describes the protocol Quarero Robotics has established over 18 months of DACH operation with energy utilities, logistics operators, and industrial parks. The numbers, deadlines, and interfaces are documented so they hold up before the board, the BBK, and the insurer.

Security Robot Incident: What the Protocol Must Deliver

An incident under this protocol is any sensor deviation above a defined threshold, any manual escalation by the operator, and any third-party contact at the perimeter. The definition is intentionally broad because audit and criminal prosecution can later only reconstruct what was logged.

The protocol separates three stages cleanly. Pre-alarm is a pure sensor event without human assessment. A verified alarm exists once an operator has confirmed the event. A reportable incident under KritisV §8b is a subset of verified alarms, defined by sector and threshold (BSI-Kritisverordnung).

Four mandatory artefacts are produced per incident: timestamp in UTC, GPS coordinates of the robot and the event location, sensor raw data (RGB, thermal, optional LiDAR), and the operator decision with a reasoning text. If one of the four fields is missing, the incident cannot be closed in the system.

Retention is 24 months for KRITIS sectors and 12 months for industrial sites without sector relevance. The audit trail is write-protected and hash-chained via SHA-256. Neither the operator nor Quarero can edit an entry after the fact. Corrections occur solely by appending a new, signed entry.

Next step for the legal classification: KRITIS Umbrella Act checklist 2026.

The Escalation Chain: Robot, Control Room, Werkschutz, Police

Escalation runs in four stages with fixed time windows.

Stage 1: The QR-2 or QR-3 detects an event and sends the pre-alarm to the Quarero control room within 800 milliseconds. Data transmission runs over redundant LTE connections with 5G fallback.

Stage 2: The operator verifies within 60 seconds via combined RGB and thermal feed. The decision is escalate or discard. This decision is the critical point: here a technical event becomes a documented incident.

Stage 3: The on-site Werkschutz receives the coordinates, the video material from the last 30 seconds, and a proposed approach route via the Quarero app. The Werkschutz confirms receipt and reports arrival at the event location.

Stage 4: The police are alerted through the control room's standard interface, not directly by the robot. This point is not negotiable. In Germany an autonomous system must not trigger direct police alerting, because the legal assessment of an incident requires a human decision.

Each stage produces its own timestamp. Gaps above 90 seconds between two stages trigger automatic review by the shift supervisor. This prevents escalations from being lost during shift changes.

Forensic Evidence at the Autonomous Patrol Point

Forensic evidence handling at KRITIS sites follows a fixed scheme, aligned with the LKA Baden-Württemberg and an audit firm.

Sensor raw data are stored locally on the robot (encrypted storage) and in parallel at the Quarero data centre in Frankfurt. The parallel storage protects against sabotage on the robot itself. Both copies carry identical hashes.

The video sequence from T-30 seconds to T+300 seconds is sealed immutably with SHA-256. The 30-second lead-in is forensically decisive because it documents the build-up of the event, not just the climax.

LiDAR point clouds from the QR-3 enable metric reconstruction of the scene. Distances, number of persons, and movement directions can thus be evidenced in a manner admissible in court. This has already been recognised by courts in two ongoing criminal proceedings.

Chain of custody: every data access is logged, including operator ID, access purpose, and duration. The operator receives a monthly overview of all accesses to data of its site.

Release to criminal prosecution occurs only on written request with a case number. The handover record is mirrored to the operator at the same time. The security manager therefore automatically learns which data of the site has been transferred to which authority. The methodological basis for risk assessment is EN ISO 13482.

Technical details on the platform: QR-3 with LiDAR and drone detection.

Reporting Duties under KRITIS Umbrella Act and NIS-2

The KRITIS-Dachgesetz defines reporting deadlines and duties for operators of critical infrastructure for physical security incidents (Bundestag-Drucksache 20/9262). The security manager must know three deadlines.

Initial report to the BBK within 24 hours in case of significant disruption to physical security. The BBK is the central reporting authority for significant disruptions in KRITIS sectors and prescribes the format and content of the incident report (BBK).

Interim report after 72 hours with technical root cause analysis. The final report is due after one month and contains damage assessment, action catalogue, and effectiveness review.

NIS-2 also covers IT-side incidents at the robot: manipulation of the radio link, compromised firmware, unauthorised access to the operator channel. Fines reach up to 10 million euros or 2 percent of global turnover (NIS-2 Directive).

The security manager bears personal responsibility for timely reporting. The board is liable in case of systematic failure of the reporting processes. This liability cascade is explicitly regulated in the NIS-2 transposition.

Quarero delivers a pre-filled report template with all mandatory technical fields within four hours of an incident. The security manager reviews, adds sector-specific fields, and submits. What does not work: a fully automated BBK report. The authority requires a named release by the responsible person.

Deeper reading on liability: NIS-2 and board liability.

Typical Incident Classes from 18 Months DACH Operation

The following distribution comes from aggregated data of 23 sites in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, period November 2024 to April 2026.

Perimeter breach by a person: 41 percent of all verified incidents. Average response time from pre-alarm to arrival of the Werkschutz 3:20 minutes. The range runs from 1:40 (inner-city plant) to 6:50 (large logistics site).

Drone overflight detected by QR-3: 12 percent, primarily at energy and logistics sites. Detection works via acoustic signatures and LiDAR. Escalation runs differently from ground intrusions, because direct intervention in the airspace is not possible. Documentation and pattern recognition are the added value here.

Vehicle intrusion onto restricted plant area: 23 percent. In about three out of four cases the cause is misnavigation by subcontractors. Documentation is mandatory nonetheless, because the incident was potentially security-relevant.

Early fire detection via thermal camera: 8 percent. In two cases the robot detected the fire before stationary detectors triggered. This is no substitute for the fire alarm system, but a documented time advantage.

Sabotage attempt against the robot itself: 4 percent. All cases were documented and handed over to the responsible LKA. In three cases this led to criminal investigations.

Remaining 12 percent: animal movement, weather artefacts (heavy rain, fog), maintenance personnel without correct registration in the system.

Interface to the Existing Control Room and Werkschutz

No KRITIS operator replaces an existing control room. The security robot incident protocol must fit in.

Standard protocols: OPC UA for machine and plant connection, MQTT over TLS 1.3 for event messages, optional ONVIF Profile T for video integration into existing VMS systems. The choice depends on the existing infrastructure.

Integration into PSIM systems (Genetec Security Center, Milestone XProtect, Nedap AEOS) occurs without media breaks. Events appear in the familiar operator view of the control room, with the Quarero data feed as an additional layer.

The Werkschutz app has an offline cache. It works even with failed WLAN infrastructure, because the last 24 hours are held locally. Sync occurs automatically on reconnection.

Daily handover reports at shift change are generated automatically from the incident list. The shift leader reviews, adds handwritten notes via the app, and signs digitally.

Training of the Werkschutz on the protocol: two days initial, half-day refresher every six months. This is not optional. Missing training records are an audit finding under §34a Gewerbeordnung and the KRITIS-Dachgesetz.

What the Protocol Costs and What It Saves

The cost question is the most frequent question from the CFO. Here are the defensible numbers.

QR-2 with complete incident protocol: 3,500 euros monthly in the RaaS model. The audit trail, the hash chain, and the forensic evidence handling are included. There is no surcharge for evidence preservation.

Comparison with conventional 24/7 guard posts: 15,000 to 25,000 euros monthly, depending on region, Manteltarifvertrag, and shift model. Incident documentation there is mostly paper-based or via simple guard-book software without forensic sealing. Detailed comparison: Guard service cost comparison.

Fine risk under NIS-2 in case of incomplete or delayed reporting: up to 10 million euros or 2 percent of global annual turnover. The higher value applies. For a company with 800 million euros turnover, that is 16 million euros per incident.

Insurance premium falls, based on 14 concluded policies, by 8 to 14 percent with a gapless digital incident protocol. Insurers concretely reward the hash chain and the 24-month retention, because they make recourse claims more defensible.

ROI of the protocol alone via avoided fines and premium reduction is typically below 11 months. That is conservatively calculated and excludes operational savings on personnel.

Model description: Robotics-as-a-Service model.

Pilot Phase: From the First Incident to a Defensible Process

The path from contract to a defensible incident protocol takes 12 weeks.

Delivery of QR-2 or QR-3 occurs within 48 hours of contract signing. Commissioning including control room connection takes two working days. The robot is patrol-ready on day three, the protocol active on day four.

First four weeks: daily incident reviews with the Quarero operator and Werkschutz management. Thresholds, routes, and escalation rules are calibrated here. This is manual work and does not replace algorithms.

Thresholds are set site-specifically. Reduction of false alarms by 60 to 80 percent against factory settings is typical after four weeks. A logistics site with frequent animal movement needs different values than a substation.

End of the pilot phase after 12 weeks with handover of three documents: protocol manual (sector-specific), training certificates for the Werkschutz, audit report with effectiveness proof. These three documents are the central evidence in audits under the KRITIS-Dachgesetz.

Transition into regular operation occurs without contract adjustment. The RaaS model continues unchanged. For the BBK registration as a prerequisite of the KRITIS reporting chain: BBK registration step by step. For the outdoor perimeter specification: QR-2 for 24/7 outdoor perimeter.

Security managers who want to make their incident protocol defensible before the next audit or before the first NIS-2 review schedule a technical initial conversation via our contact page. The conversation takes 45 minutes and provides an assessment of the gap analysis against the KRITIS-Dachgesetz and NIS-2, independent of any subsequent engagement.