MyZubster Pilot Projects: Building an Evidence-First Path Toward EU LIFE
MyZubster is evolving from an open-source ecosystem into an evidence-first infrastructure designed to connect software, people, environmental observations, sensors, AI-assisted workflows and real-world pilot projects.
One of the directions we are currently exploring is how this infrastructure could support environmental pilots aligned with the objectives and working methods of the European Union's LIFE Programme.
This is an important distinction:
MyZubster is not claiming to be an EU-funded LIFE project today.
The current work is preparatory. There is no claim of European Commission or CINEA endorsement, approved LIFE funding, a completed consortium or automatically validated environmental impact.
The goal is to build the technical and evidence infrastructure that a serious pilot needs before making environmental claims.
What is the LIFE Programme?
LIFE is the European Union's funding programme dedicated to environment and climate action.
Its 2021–2027 structure includes four main sub-programmes:
- Nature and Biodiversity
- Circular Economy and Quality of Life
- Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
- Clean Energy Transition
Official LIFE Programme:
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en
The Circular Economy and Quality of Life programme supports work around areas such as waste and resource recovery, water, soil, air, chemicals and environmental governance.
Climate-oriented LIFE projects can also include pilot, demonstration and best-practice approaches designed to test measurable solutions.
For MyZubster, this is particularly interesting because the technical problem is not only:
"Can we build a solution?"
It is also:
"Can we prove what happened, against a baseline, with traceable evidence?"
The MyZubster evidence model
The common architecture behind our candidate pilots is:
REAL-WORLD EVENT
↓
AUTHORIZED DATA / OBSERVATION
↓
PROVENANCE
↓
BASELINE
↓
MEASURABLE KPI
↓
EVIDENCE RECORD
↓
HUMAN / TECHNICAL REVIEW
↓
REPRODUCIBLE REPORT
Instead of treating a dashboard screenshot or an automated result as proof by itself, MyZubster is designed around explicit evidence states.
Some examples:
candidate ≠ partner
discussion ≠ agreement
simulation ≠ physical deployment
observation ≠ validated environmental outcome
GitHub contribution ≠ institutional participation
automation ≠ independent scientific verification
Main repository:
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster
Public vision and architecture:
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster/blob/main/VISION.md
Pilot Track 1 — Absorbent Hygiene Products
One candidate circular-economy pilot focuses on Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP).
This category can include products such as:
- diapers / nappies
- sanitary absorbent products
- incontinence products
The candidate material flow is:
collection
↓
traceable batch
↓
treatment
↓
recovered materials
↓
destination / reuse
↓
environmental evidence
A real pilot could measure indicators such as:
- total mass collected
- mass treated
- recovery yield by material fraction
- rejected or residual fraction
- destination of secondary materials
- completeness of traceability records
- environmental indicators compared with an agreed baseline
The important part is that MyZubster would not need to operate the recycling plant itself.
Its possible role is the digital evidence and provenance layer connecting the stages of the process.
The current status is:
CANDIDATE_PILOT_TRACK
No recycler, municipality, technology provider or waste-management organisation is currently represented as a confirmed LIFE/MyZubster partner merely because this track exists.
Pilot documentation:
Pilot Track 2 — Industrial Hemp Circular Bioeconomy
A second candidate pilot explores the circular use of industrial hemp and lawful agro-industrial biomass or residues.
This is specifically about industrial biomass and circular material flows — not recreational cannabis or controlled-substance commerce.
The possible flow is:
cultivation / processing residue
↓
traceable biomass lot
↓
transformation / reuse
↓
secondary material or product
↓
environmental evidence
Potential measurements could include:
- biomass or residue input
- material recovery or valorisation yield
- waste avoided or diverted, where demonstrable
- destination and use of outputs
- provenance completeness
- environmental indicators measured against a defined baseline
Again, the core principle is:
do not infer environmental impact simply because material was processed.
If a project wants to claim avoided waste, improved material efficiency or another environmental benefit, the baseline and measurement method need to be defined first.
Current status:
CANDIDATE_PILOT_TRACK
Documentation:
Pilot Direction 3 — Environmental Sensing, Soil and Irrigation
Another part of the MyZubster architecture is connecting environmental sensing with human-governed automation.
Our EVA IONI / Zorgax development direction includes models for:
- environmental sensing
- soil sensing
- irrigation interfaces
- evidence collection
- safety gates
- manual override
The architecture deliberately starts with simulation.
SENSOR MODEL
↓
OBSERVATION
↓
VALIDATION
↓
ZORGAX ANALYSIS
↓
RECOMMENDATION
↓
HUMAN AUTHORIZATION
↓
BOUNDED ACTION
A simulated sensor value is not described as a real environmental measurement.
Likewise, a software-controlled irrigation model is not described as a verified physical deployment until hardware, location, permissions and safety controls are independently established.
This distinction becomes critical when software moves from dashboards into the physical environment.
Architecture:
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster/blob/main/VISION.md
Zorgax: AI-assisted evidence orchestration
Zorgax is the automation/orchestration layer inside this architecture.
Its role is not to become an autonomous environmental authority.
Instead, it can help:
- ingest authorized information
- classify observations
- normalize data
- prepare provenance records
- identify missing evidence
- calculate or prepare KPI inputs
- prepare reviewable reports
- route contributor tasks
- detect inconsistent states
But consequential transitions remain human-controlled.
AUTOMATION MAY
observe
classify
validate
prepare
recommend
HUMANS RETAIN
consent
authorization
partnership decisions
publication
legal commitments
physical activation
That is especially important for environmental pilots.
AI can make evidence workflows faster.
It should not manufacture evidence.
Baselines and KPIs before claims
A LIFE-oriented pilot needs more than a good idea.
Before claiming improvement, we want a clear answer to questions such as:
What was the starting condition?
What exactly changed?
How was it measured?
Who produced the measurement?
Where is the source evidence?
Can another person reproduce the calculation?
This is why MyZubster is building around:
- baseline definition
- KPI/MRV workflows
- provenance
- evidence registries
- explicit stakeholder states
- authorization records
- technical and scientific review
- reproducible reporting
The desired flow is:
BASELINE
↓
AUTHORIZED PILOT
↓
MEASUREMENTS
↓
RAW EVIDENCE
↓
PROVENANCE
↓
KPI / MRV
↓
REVIEW
↓
REPRODUCIBLE RESULT
From candidate pilot to real pilot
Another important part of the project is refusing to collapse every relationship into the word "partner."
A candidate pilot can move through explicit states:
CANDIDATE_PILOT_TRACK
↓
STAKEHOLDER_IN_DISCUSSION
↓
PILOT_SCOPE_IN_DEFINITION
↓
PILOT_CONFIRMED
↓
MEASURED PILOT
↓
VALIDATED OUTCOMES
A GitHub issue does not create a partnership.
An email does not create a consortium.
A meeting does not prove environmental impact.
And participation does not automatically validate a KPI.
This may sound conservative, but environmental projects become stronger when their evidence boundary is clear.
People and contributors
MyZubster is also experimenting with structured participant and contributor pathways.
One example is Nicola Lorenzini / N4K48, whose contributor and Metaverse journey is documented separately from institutional or LIFE partnership claims.
Nicola's public DEV article:
https://dev.to/n4k48/building-n4k48-my-journey-with-myzubster-ai-and-neon-plaza-3nbp
Participant documentation:
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster/blob/main/docs/NICOLA_LORENZINI_LIFE.md
The important governance principle is:
CONTRIBUTOR
≠
PARTICIPANT
≠
EMPLOYEE
≠
LIFE PARTNER
≠
CONSORTIUM MEMBER
Those states need separate evidence.
Replication matters
A useful environmental pilot should eventually be reproducible outside the original team.
That means publishing enough information for another actor to understand:
- setup
- baseline
- data schema
- KPI definitions
- evidence requirements
- software components
- safety requirements
- authorization boundaries
- expected outputs
Our longer-term direction is therefore not simply to publish a successful dashboard.
It is to build a Replication Kit.
The stronger test is not:
"Can MyZubster demonstrate this once?"
It is:
"Can another authorized organisation independently reproduce the workflow and obtain auditable evidence?"
Why open source matters here
Environmental projects often combine many layers:
physical environment
+
people
+
sensors
+
organisations
+
software
+
data
+
reporting
Making the software and evidence methodology public provides a way to inspect how conclusions were produced.
GitHub organisation:
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem
MyZubster website:
Press and evidence overview:
https://www.myzubster.com/press
Interactive Comic Universe:
https://myzubster.com/fumetto.html
Current status
As of September 2026, the accurate description is:
✅ MyZubster has an active open-source evidence architecture.
✅ Baseline, provenance, KPI and participant/stakeholder workflows are being developed.
✅ Candidate circular-economy pilot tracks are publicly documented.
✅ Environmental sensing and human-gated automation are part of the technical direction.
✅ Contributor and pilot-state separation is implemented as an explicit governance principle.
⚠️ The AHP and industrial-hemp tracks remain candidate/exploratory pilots.
⚠️ Physical sensing/robotics must remain distinguished from simulation until hardware deployment is verified.
⚠️ Environmental outcomes require measurements against agreed baselines.
❌ MyZubster is not claiming current EU LIFE funding.
❌ It is not claiming European Commission or CINEA endorsement.
❌ A candidate organisation is not automatically a partner.
❌ A contributor is not automatically a consortium member.
What comes next
The next milestone is to move from architecture to bounded real-world validation.
That means finding authorized pilot contexts where we can define:
- a real environmental problem;
- a responsible organisation or site;
- an agreed baseline;
- measurable indicators;
- a clear data boundary;
- provenance rules;
- human and technical review;
- a reproducible pilot package.
Only then should a candidate track move toward a confirmed pilot.
And only measured evidence should support environmental outcome claims.
That is the approach we want to bring to the MyZubster LIFE-oriented work:
evidence before claims, baseline before impact, authorization before deployment, and reproducibility before scale.
Links
MyZubster
https://myzubster.com
GitHub
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster
Candidate circular-economy pilots
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster/blob/main/docs/life/circular-economy-candidate-pilots.md
Public architecture / vision
https://github.com/MyZubster-Ecosystem/myzubster/blob/main/VISION.md
Press & environmental/LIFE direction
https://www.myzubster.com/press
EU LIFE Programme — CINEA
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en
LIFE Circular Economy and Quality of Life
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life/circular-economy-and-quality-life_en
LIFE Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life/climate-change-mitigation-and-adaptation_en
Top comments (0)