What should happen if model access fails during an MHS experiment?

Anthropic's MHS preview gives programmable lab and manufacturing equipment a shared driver format. A device exposes read and write commands, describes its physical limits, and can be reached through MCP, a command line interface, or code. That removes a lot of one off integration work. It does not make every agent safe to drop into the same control loop. Claude treated a physical problem like a software error and retried the operation, which created more bubbles. Researchers had to explain the physics and later save the correction as a reusable skill. In the laser example, Claude eventually wrote deterministic alignment code so the hardware could run without asking a model to reason through every fast control step. The word failover tripped me up here because it can describe two different events. In TokenRouter, automatic failover looks for another available channel for the requested model. Swapping Claude for another model in the middle of a run is a separate policy decision, even if both events begin with a provider problem. For a lab system, I would keep model choice flexible while planning and freeze it when the physical run starts. A provider failure should pause the run or follow a recovery path tested before the experiment. Fast control should stay in deterministic code. MHS standardizes the device interface, but the agent system still has to enforce that boundary.