When did this incident occur?

The incident is recorded as occurring on November 21, 2025 on the DEPLOY registry. The date reflects the underlying real-world event, not the registry record's creation date.

Incident · Property damage

Figure 02 alleged to have gashed a steel door in a malfunction (whistleblower lawsuit)

A wrongful-termination complaint filed Nov 21 2025 by former Figure principal safety engineer Robert Gruendel alleges that a Figure 02 (F.02) malfunctioned and carved a roughly quarter-inch-deep gash into a steel appliance door, and that internal impact testing produced forces more than twice a human-skull-fracture threshold, with a person standing nearby. VERIFIED-VS-CLAIMED: the lawsuit's existence and filed allegations are verified by tier-1 outlets (CNBC), but the malfunction itself is an UNPROVEN ALLEGATION in active litigation; Figure denies the claims and says Gruendel was terminated for performance. Recorded as a litigation-sourced allegation, not established fact. Cap-flag: incident date not disclosed (the Nov 21 2025 anchor is the lawsuit filing date; safety-testing referenced ~Jul-Sep 2025).

Occurred 2025-11-21 · Figure 02 · Figure AI

How to read this record

Incident records on DEPLOY are compiled from public sources (regulatory filings, news reports, and operator disclosures) and reflect what has been reported and tracked to date. They are not legal findings, determinations of fault, or safety ratings, and may be updated as new information is verified. See the sources below for the underlying references.

Track Figure 02 alleged to have gashed a steel door in a malfunction (whistleblower lawsuit)

Machine-readable surfaces

Markdown mirror: /incidents/figure-02-steel-door-gash-allegation-2025.md
JSON-LD: embedded in this page’s head
REST API: /v1/incidents/90c61ecd-2b8e-4670-8833-982bdeb2ff15
Data documentation: /data
Query this programmatically: Deploy MCP

Outcomes (1)

property damagereported

Revision history (1)

2026-06-05 · outcome_class

Outcome rows carry verification_posture independently. Revision events carry basis (verified_court_filing, verified_insurance, reported_press, estimate, undisclosed). The framework records outcomes only when verifiable; absence is honest absence, not a claim of no-impact.

Sources (2)

Common questions

What happened in Figure 02 alleged to have gashed a steel door in a malfunction (whistleblower lawsuit)?: A wrongful-termination complaint filed Nov 21 2025 by former Figure principal safety engineer Robert Gruendel alleges that a Figure 02 (F.02) malfunctioned and carved a roughly quarter-inch-deep gash into a steel appliance door, and that internal impact testing produced forces more than twice a human-skull-fracture threshold, with a person standing nearby. VERIFIED-VS-CLAIMED: the lawsuit's existence and filed allegations are verified by tier-1 outlets (CNBC), but the malfunction itself is an UNPROVEN ALLEGATION in active litigation; Figure denies the claims and says Gruendel was terminated for performance. Recorded as a litigation-sourced allegation, not established fact. Cap-flag: incident date not disclosed (the Nov 21 2025 anchor is the lawsuit filing date; safety-testing referenced ~Jul-Sep 2025).
When did this incident occur?: The incident is recorded as occurring on November 21, 2025 on the DEPLOY registry. The date reflects the underlying real-world event, not the registry record's creation date.
What robot was involved in Figure 02 alleged to have gashed a steel door in a malfunction (whistleblower lawsuit)?: Figure 02 by Figure AI is the recorded robot involved in this incident.
Has anyone responded to Figure 02 alleged to have gashed a steel door in a malfunction (whistleblower lawsuit)?: No responses to this incident are recorded on the DEPLOY registry. Operators, manufacturers, or affected parties can submit responses to the editorial team; absence is not a guarantee no response was issued.
What is the current status of Figure 02 alleged to have gashed a steel door in a malfunction (whistleblower lawsuit)?: This incident is an active record on the DEPLOY registry; no retraction or correction has been issued.

Methodology: Verified · 2 sources (no primary) · last reviewed 2026-06-24

Verification posture

Verified

Medium confidence

Review state

Stable

Last reviewed 2026-06-24

Sources by quality tier

1: secondary-established-publication; Established publication
1: unclassified; Unclassified source

The framework is documented at /methodology. Corrections at /corrections. Reviewer: DEPLOY editorial team.

Deploy Watch

Track this incident.

We notify you when the regulator updates the record, the remedy status changes, or a related incident surfaces.

Canonical ID 90c61ecd-2b8e-4670-8833-982bdeb2ff15