Reuse / Life Extension
Continue use, donate, transfer, selectively upgrade or route to verified refurbishment.
Version EWNC-3R-PILOT-1.1 · Explainable pilot model
3R Circular-Pathway Model
Assess whether an electronic product may be suitable for reuse or life extension, repair or refurbishment, or authorized recycling.
Operational interpretation
The model performs preliminary questionnaire-based triage. It does not diagnose a product from an image, issue a safety certificate or replace physical inspection. The Nodal Centre Hub can validate or override every recommendation.
Overview
Retain the highest safe value before recycling
The model gives priority to safe continued use, donation, transfer, repair and refurbishment. Authorized recycling is recommended when critical hazards, severe damage, unavailable parts, end-of-life age or unfavourable repair economics make life extension unsuitable.
Repair / Refurbish
Inspect and repair when condition, parts, technical feasibility, age and economics are favourable.
Authorized Recycling
Use controlled handling and recovery for hazardous, severely damaged or end-of-life products.
Transparent weighted model
Why it is explainable
The model is deterministic and auditable. Each questionnaire answer adds or subtracts points from the three pathways. The result includes all scores, key reasons, the selected route, safety status and a manual-review flag.
Questionnaire → Safety gate → Three scores → Route → Hub validationWho can use it
A common screening interface for public and technical users
Citizens
Understand the likely next step before submitting an unwanted electronic product.
Institutions
Screen multiple assets and identify products that require detailed inspection.
Technicians and Hubs
Use a consistent preliminary checklist before diagnosis and final routing.
Researchers
Test thresholds, compare model and expert decisions, and build a validated dataset.
Required data
Information used by the pilot decision model
Product category and age
Used to compare the reported age with an editable pilot service-life benchmark.
Working condition
Fully working, intermittent or not working.
Damage level
No damage, minor, moderate or severe damage.
Repairability and parts
Technical feasibility and likely availability of replacement parts.
Repair economics
Estimated repair cost compared with the replacement value.
User preference
Continue use, donate or hand over for treatment.
Safety flags
Battery swelling, burnt smell, fire damage, live wires, liquid or chemical leakage.
Image for verification
Operational submissions collect an image for Hub review; the pilot does not claim image diagnosis.
Model outputs
What the model returns
Recommended Pathway
Reuse / life extension, repair / refurbishment, or authorized recycling.
Three Decision Scores
The score of every pathway remains visible for comparison and audit.
Confidence Indicator
The winning score as a share of the total; it is not a statistical accuracy guarantee.
Human-Readable Reasons
Key conditions that influenced the selected route.
Safety-Gate Status
Indicates whether a critical hazard forced controlled handling.
Manual-Review Flag
Triggered by safety hazards or close and uncertain scores.
Expected-Life Benchmark
Shows the editable category benchmark used for the age comparison.
Recommended Next Step
A plain-language route for the user and Nodal Centre Hub.
Methodology
Decision hierarchy and scoring logic
1. Mandatory safety gate
Critical hazards such as a swollen battery, burnt smell, fire damage, exposed live wires or chemical leakage strongly increase the recycling score and suppress the reuse and repair scores. Such cases require controlled handling and manual review.
2. Reuse and life-extension score
Functional condition, low damage, younger age and a preference to continue use or donate increase the reuse score. This pathway covers continued use, transfer, donation, selective upgrade and verified refurbishment.
3. Repair and refurbishment score
Intermittent operation, minor or moderate damage, feasible repair, available parts, suitable age and favourable repair economics increase the repair score.
4. Recycling score
Non-functionality, severe damage, difficult repair, unavailable parts, high repair cost, end-of-life age and safety concerns increase the recycling score.
5. Repair economics
Repair cost ≤ 40% of replacement value → strong repair signal40–60% → mixed signal and reviewRepair cost > 60% → stronger recycling signalThese are editable pilot thresholds. They must be calibrated by product category, local repair markets and observed outcomes.
6. Selection and confidence
The highest of the three scores becomes the preliminary recommendation. The displayed confidence is the winning score divided by the sum of all pathway scores. Low confidence does not indicate a probability of correctness; it indicates that the scores are close or distributed.
7. Human oversight
The operational platform stores both the model recommendation and the final Hub decision. Physical inspection, technical diagnosis, safety review and downstream partner feedback can change the route.
Validation plan
How the pilot becomes a research-quality model
Collect Hub-reviewed and physically inspected cases.Record model recommendation, expert decision and actual final outcome.Measure overall agreement and pathway-specific precision and recall.Prioritize the detection of unsafe false reuse or repair recommendations.Review product-specific service lives, cost thresholds and parts availability.Version every change and preserve previous model results for audit.
Current status
Functional pilot · Under validation
No validated image classifier is included. The model uses the questionnaire and keeps an uploaded image only for expert verification in real submissions.
Evidence base
Research concepts supporting the model
The model combines value-retention hierarchy, repair economics, service-life evidence and human-in-the-loop decision support. Centre publications and formal calibration papers can be added as the pilot dataset grows.
Value-retention hierarchy
Reuse, repair and refurbishment retain more product value than immediate material recycling when safety and technical feasibility permit.
Product lifespan research
Category lifespan is treated as a distribution and decision context, not a fixed universal expiry date.
Oguchi et al., Lifespan of Commodities, Part IIHuman-in-the-loop validation
Questionnaire output supports triage while trained staff retain authority over safety, diagnosis and final routing.
Run the functional model
Test an explainable 3R recommendation
Change the product condition, age, repairability, parts, economics and safety information. The model displays all three scores and the reasons behind the selected route.