PROPOSED STANDARD · NSMAEP

Non-Standard Mobility Aid Evaluation Protocol

A function-first, setting-specific process for evaluating an unfamiliar disability-related mobility aid without presuming either access or exclusion.

Use Review ToolsLaw & Guidance Boundary

Protocol premise

Function before appearance.

Evaluate what the aid enables, how it is operated, and the actual risks in the setting—not whether it resembles a familiar device.

A non-standard mobility aid is a device, configuration, or practiced adaptation used to address a disability-related mobility function that falls outside an institution’s familiar device taxonomy or ordinary accommodation workflow.

It is an evaluation category, not an automatic legal classification, diagnosis, entitlement, permit, or universal authorization.

Eight stages

Complete the record in order.

Each stage is part of the proposed standard. The amount of evidence should remain proportionate to the request and setting.

  1. STAGE 1 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Mobility Function

    Identify the functional mobility problem before discussing device category.

    • What task is limited?
    • What mobility function does the aid provide?
    • What happens without it?
    • Is a conventional alternative available?
    • If so, is it functionally equivalent for this person?
    • Do not demand unnecessary diagnosis disclosure.
  2. STAGE 2 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Device / Adaptation Function

    What does it do?—not what does it look like?

    • Movement mechanism, control, stopping, steering, transfers, and stability
    • Dimensions, speed, storage, and operating characteristics
    • Relevant constraints created by the device or adaptation
  3. STAGE 3 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    User Proficiency

    • Relevant experience and operating history
    • Control, stopping, maneuvering, and transfers
    • Ability to follow setting-specific conditions
    • A demonstration only where the environment justifies it
    • No universal obstacle-course requirement
  4. STAGE 4 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Functional Evidence

    Use proportionate evidence. Advanced instrumentation is optional supporting evidence, not an eligibility gate.

    1. Individual functional statement and requested use
    2. Direct observation or setting-appropriate demonstration
    3. Professional functional documentation
    4. Prior scoped accommodations, decisions, and successful-use history
    5. Device, biomechanical, technical, or rehabilitation evidence where relevant
    6. Optional objective measurements, such as activity history, route data, wearables, or other instrumentation

    WHOOP, Polar, Kubios, Strava, FSI, and CSS are not prerequisites.

  5. STAGE 5 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Environment

    Evaluate the actual setting rather than making a universal judgment detached from it.

    • Surface, grade, width, crowding, and pedestrian density
    • Boarding, transfers, platform edges, security, storage, and emergency egress
    • Indoor/outdoor use and vehicle interaction
  6. STAGE 6 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Actual Risk

    Use a structured, evidence-aware analysis with visible uncertainty.

    Identified HazardSetting-Specific MechanismExposed Person / PropertyLikelihoodSeverityUser ControlExisting SafeguardsFeasible MitigationResidual RiskScoped Decision

    Record evidence quality and uncertainty at each step. See the Actual Risk framework for current-law/guidance parallels and their limits.

  7. STAGE 7 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Mitigation Before Exclusion

    Consider the proposed narrowest effective condition before categorical exclusion where the evidence supports a narrower response.

    • Pedestrian-speed operation or restricted zones
    • Narrowly defined dismount locations or designated paths
    • Escort, alternate boarding, storage, or security procedures
    • Justified time/place conditions
    • Do not imply that every mitigation is legally required.
  8. STAGE 8 · PROPOSED STANDARD

    Documented Decision

    Produce a reviewable, scoped record.

    • Request, functional purpose, and device/adaptation
    • Proficiency evidence, environment, and evidence considered
    • Hazards, risk analysis, and mitigation considered
    • Decision, reasons, conditions, scope, reviewer, and date
    • Review route if available and reassessment trigger

Scope boundary

Current law, case-derived lesson, proposed standard.

This protocol is a proposed standard. It is informed by limited current-law/guidance parallels and by case-derived lessons, but it does not create legal entitlement, mandatory mitigation, certification authority, or a new device classification.

Review Law & GuidanceReview the Motivating Case