Drei Knoten.
Ein sinnvoller nächster Schritt.

Workshop Handover Log — Draft

A proposed single-device handover log, conditional on validating a structured paper process first.

Kind: software · Investigation: Workshop handover, reviewed by an orchestrator · Composed: 2026-10-01T19:54:43.304Z · Model details: see the original download

1. Problem space

Who: Staff and supervisor in the fictional two-shift workshop.

Pain: The synthetic notes illustrate ambiguity about ownership, next action and closure; they do not establish real-world demand or impact.

Context: Investigate the paper process before building software. Operational and safety decisions remain with the supervisor outside the app.

Evidence: handover-question What should the next shift know?; sample-handover Three sample handover notes; handover-concept A single-device handover log

2. Solution idea

If the paper-process gate passes, prototype a local browser log on one shared device. Capture six core fields, show unresolved items first, record receipt acknowledgements and export JSON and CSV.

Differentiators

• One device and a fixed local application origin.
• Acknowledgement records receipt without changing ownership.

Non-goals

• No backend, cloud, accounts, sync, notifications, integrations, AI features, machine control, diagnosis or safety sign-off.
• No telemetry, in-app paper-comparison view or JSON import/restore.

3. Concept

User journey

1. Before a software build, a supervisor evaluates whether a structured six-field paper checklist produces usable handovers.
2. If that gate passes, staff create or edit local items; the next shift sees unresolved items first and can acknowledge receipt.
3. A supervisor exports records for external review. A later evaluation compares the prototype with the paper baseline before any broader commitment.

Success criteria

• The paper gate has pre-agreed checks for field completeness and owner/next-action clarity; no outcome is assumed.
• The proposed prototype passes persistence, ordering, acknowledgement and export checks on a selected device and browser.
• A later, separately defined software-versus-paper comparison establishes whether software adds value.

4. Data

Entities

Evidence used as data

5. Architecture

Proposed vanilla JavaScript UI and direct IndexedDB, with bundled static assets served on the shared device at http://localhost:4173. No external requests or backend.

Components

Interfaces

Deployment: Proposed fixed origin http://localhost:4173 on one shared device; choose the device, browser and local server before persistence testing. Initial loopback asset loads are expected; normal use makes no external requests.

6. Modules

7. Build waves

Wave 1 · Wave 1 — Records and UI (sequential)

After the paper gate, implement and check m1, then m2.

Modules: m1, m2

Wave 2 · Wave 2 — Export (sequential)

After Wave 1, implement m3 and check the integrated prototype.

Modules: m3

8. PRDs

m1

S1 · Save a six-field item

• A valid item is saved at the fixed origin with generated item_id and timestamp.
• Missing equipment label, issue, owner or next action is rejected.

S2 · Retrieve unresolved items first

• Open and awaiting_review items appear before closed items; within each status, updated_at descending determines order.
• Saved items remain available after browser restart at the same origin.

m2

S3 · Create and edit from the tablet UI

• The form exposes equipment label, issue, owner, next action and status; timestamp is set by the app.
• Editing an item updates updated_at and displays the saved values.

S4 · Acknowledge receipt

• Acknowledging stores entered initials and acknowledged_at and displays both.
• Comparing the stored record before and after acknowledgement shows current_owner and status unchanged.

m3

S5 · Export JSON

• The downloaded JSON parses and contains every stored item and its metadata.
• The UI offers no import or restore action; export is not presented as in-app recovery.

S6 · Export readable CSV

• The CSV has one row per item and headers for item_id, the six core fields, updated_at, acknowledged_by and acknowledged_at.
• A proposed check opens the download and verifies that commas, quotes and line breaks in entered text remain within their CSV fields.

Design system

• Show unresolved work first.
• Label owner and next action explicitly.
• Keep receipt acknowledgement distinct from issue ownership.

Tone: Plain and non-authoritative about safety. · Colors: High-contrast dark text on a light backg · Typography: System font; tablet legibility requires prototype review.

Agent concurrency

Up to 1 builder(s) in parallel.

Shared files (serialize edits)

• src/store.js
• src/app.js
• src/export.js

Rules

• One builder at a time.
• Complete Wave 1 before Wave 2.
• Review changes to the record contract before dependent UI or export changes.

Controls and tests

Dependencies

Risks

Open questions

• Which tablet, browser and local-server arrangement will be used?
• Who enters acknowledgement initials, and how is ambiguity handled?
• What are the device-unavailability, export-retention and recovery procedures?
• What privacy rules govern names, issue descriptions and exported files?
• What paper-checklist material and tablet placement are suitable?
• What pre-agreed paper-gate criteria and later comparison method are acceptable?

Evidence

• handover-question What should the next shift know?
• sample-handover Three sample handover notes
• handover-concept A single-device handover log

Recorded investigation basis

Frozen scope: my canvas revision 1

No linked decision is inferred; review the retained records before treating this draft as a commitment.

Selected concept

No selected named concept was present in the frozen package scope.

Human decision records

No selected human concept decision record.

Exact selected material

• handover-question What should the next shift know? (content 1)
• sample-handover Three sample handover notes (content 1)
• handover-concept A single-device handover log (content 1)

Frozen specification

Export state: Needs review · Specification revision: 1

Specification digest: da945df18ef33c486d5a8016dfe1d97b066bcfae2cbaac190a180a66e41a432c

No human approval for handoff is recorded for this exact specification revision. Downloading or copying this export does not approve it.

R-001 · revision 1 · Needs review

Before software work, define and run a supervised structured-paper gate; assess software against paper only in a later, separate comparison.

Acceptance

• Document the paper measures and pass criteria before the paper pilot.
• Document a separate, pre-agreed software-versus-paper comparison before drawing a software value conclusion.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-question, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• No real pilot results are supplied.

Unresolved

• Pilot duration, sample size and decision thresholds.

R-002 · revision 1 · Needs review

Store the six-field handover item locally on one device at the fixed application origin, without an external service.

Acceptance

• Create an item and verify its six core fields in IndexedDB.
• At the same origin, verify it remains after browser restart; inspect normal use for external requests.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-concept, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• The selected device can run a local static server and supports IndexedDB.

Unresolved

• Target device and browser.

R-003 · revision 1 · Needs review

Present unresolved items first and allow creation, editing and receipt acknowledgement without transferring ownership.

Acceptance

• A mixed-status fixture displays open and awaiting_review before closed.
• Before/after record comparison confirms acknowledgement writes initials and time but leaves current_owner and status unchanged.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=sample-handover, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-concept, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Entered initials can be interpreted under an agreed workshop policy.

Unresolved

• Acknowledgement identity policy.

R-004 · revision 1 · Needs review

Provide outbound JSON and readable CSV export; exclude JSON import and in-app restore.

Acceptance

• Parse a downloaded JSON file and compare its records with the stored set.
• Check CSV headers, row count and escaping against the same set.
• Confirm there is no import or restore control or claim.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-concept, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Supervisors can retain exports outside the app.

Unresolved

• Export retention and recovery policy.

R-005 · revision 1 · Needs review

Keep the draft build to three modules, two sequential waves and one builder; exclude telemetry and an in-app paper-comparison view.

Acceptance

• Review the plan for exactly three modules, six stories, two sequential waves and one builder.
• Inspect proposed UI and checks for the absence of telemetry and a paper-comparison view.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-question, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

None.

Unresolved

None.

Exact reference availability

• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-question, contentRevision=1 — current
• canvas=my, nodeId=handover-concept, contentRevision=1 — current
• canvas=my, nodeId=sample-handover, contentRevision=1 — current

Honest unresolved context

Contradictions, risks and missing evidence

• Synthetic notes do not establish user demand or ergonomic suitability. — Run the paper gate and review the prototype before adoption.
• Changing origin or losing the single device may make records inaccessible; export cannot restore them in-app. — Fix the origin, test on the chosen device and agree an external retention and recovery policy.
• Shared-device acknowledgements may not reliably identify a person. — Agree an initials and supervision policy outside the app.
• Privacy and physical suitability of the tablet or paper checklist materials are unknown. — Resolve handling, access, retention and physical-use questions before any supervised pilot.

Risks accepted for this exact handoff

None. This revision has no handoff approval.

Unanswered questions

• Which tablet, browser and local-server arrangement will be used?
• Who enters acknowledgement initials, and how is ambiguity handled?
• What are the device-unavailability, export-retention and recovery procedures?
• What privacy rules govern names, issue descriptions and exported files?
• What paper-checklist material and tablet placement are suitable?
• What pre-agreed paper-gate criteria and later comparison method are acceptable?
• Pilot duration, sample size and decision thresholds.
• Target device and browser.
• Acknowledgement identity policy.
• Export retention and recovery policy.

Assumptions

• No real pilot results are supplied.
• The selected device can run a local static server and supports IndexedDB.
• Entered initials can be interpreted under an agreed workshop policy.
• Supervisors can retain exports outside the app.

Requirements without an exact decision record

• R-001
• R-002
• R-003
• R-004
• R-005

Pending claims / requirements awaiting human review

• R-001
• R-002
• R-003
• R-004
• R-005

Some retained historical material is unavailable. Its frozen identifiers remain visible, but this export does not restore or disclose the unavailable private content.

PRD · Local records

Schema, validation, persistence and unresolved-first query.

S1 · Save a six-field item

Acceptance:

• A valid item is saved at the fixed origin with generated item_id and timestamp.
• Missing equipment label, issue, owner or next action is rejected.

S2 · Retrieve unresolved items first

Acceptance:

• Open and awaiting_review items appear before closed items; within each status, updated_at descending determines order.
• Saved items remain available after browser restart at the same origin.

PRD · Handover UI

Create, edit, list and acknowledge receipt. Depends on: m1

S3 · Create and edit from the tablet UI

Acceptance:

• The form exposes equipment label, issue, owner, next action and status; timestamp is set by the app.
• Editing an item updates updated_at and displays the saved values.

S4 · Acknowledge receipt

Acceptance:

• Acknowledging stores entered initials and acknowledged_at and displays both.
• Comparing the stored record before and after acknowledgement shows current_owner and status unchanged.

PRD · Outbound export

Download complete JSON and readable CSV without import. Depends on: m1, m2

S5 · Export JSON

Acceptance:

• The downloaded JSON parses and contains every stored item and its metadata.
• The UI offers no import or restore action; export is not presented as in-app recovery.

S6 · Export readable CSV

Acceptance:

• The CSV has one row per item and headers for item_id, the six core fields, updated_at, acknowledged_by and acknowledged_at.
• A proposed check opens the download and verifies that commas, quotes and line breaks in entered text remain within their CSV fields.

AGENTS.md

You are building Workshop Handover Log — Draft (software). Read PACKAGE.md first; it is the complete product definition. Do not widen the scope beyond it.

Frozen specification revision 1 · Needs review. Downloading this archive did not approve it. Resolve every item marked unresolved or awaiting review instead of treating it as verified.

Order of work

1. Wave 1 — Records and UI (sequential): prd/m1.md, prd/m2.md — After the paper gate, implement and check m1, then m2.
2. Wave 2 — Export (sequential): prd/m3.md — After Wave 1, implement m3 and check the integrated prototype.

Concurrency

At most 1 builder(s) at once. Serialize edits to: src/store.js, src/app.js, src/export.js.

• One builder at a time.
• Complete Wave 1 before Wave 2.
• Review changes to the record contract before dependent UI or export changes.

Definition of done

• Paper gate: Determine whether the structured paper checklist yields complete fields and unambiguous owners and next actions. (Proposed supervised paper pilot; agree measures, duration and pass criteria before collecting outcomes.)
• Later value comparison: Determine whether software improves on the validated paper baseline. (After the paper gate and prototype, pre-agree comparable measures and evaluate both processes separately.)
• Persistence and origin: Items survive browser restart and device power cycle at http://localhost:4173. (Proposed manual check on the selected device and browser; record origin and compare stored items before and after.)
• Ordering and receipt: Unresolved items lead; acknowledgement changes receipt metadata only. (Proposed mixed-status UI check and before/after IndexedDB record comparison.)
• Export and network: JSON parses, CSV columns and escaping are correct, and normal use makes no external requests. (Proposed fixture checks and browser network inspection; allow initial loopback asset requests.)

Every story in prd/ must meet its acceptance criteria before the wave is complete. Ask a human when an open question in PACKAGE.md blocks a decision; do not guess.

Workshop handover, reviewed by an orchestrator

Real model outputs from a bounded cookbook-only orchestration. All scenario inputs are synthetic.

Product scope and validation · focused review

• Problem-and-scope brief (short): Two-shift small workshop suffers ambiguous ownership/next-action at handover. The minimal proposal is a single-device local handover log (six fields: equipment_label, issue_short, current_owner, next_action, status, timestamp) accessed on a shared tablet/browser, with an acknowledge action that records receipt (initials + timestamp) but does not change ownership, and JSON/CSV export for supervisor review. Software work is conditional on first validating a structured paper checklist process in a supervised pilot. Sample handover notes are SYNTHETIC and cannot substitute for field research.
• Key constraints preserved from the three source cards: single-device, local-origin only (no backend/cloud/auth/notifications/integrations/AI/machine control), minimal six-field model, acknowledgement must only record receipt, and exports are local files. All pilot numbers and performance targets are PROPOSED, UNVALIDATED targets.
• Noted contradictions in the supplied draft that must be resolved before work: the draft text lists Wave 1 as 'parallel' while agentConcurrency limits to one builder; the draft adds a pilot comparison view and 'local telemetry' in Module 3 even though scope instructions ask to remove telemetry and to separate paper-process validation from software-vs-paper comparison; the requirements mention JSON export and at times treat import/restore as optional — this is an explicit acceptance conflict (export does not imply a restore/restore promise unless chosen and acceptance criteria updated).

Recommendations

• Decision gate A — Paper-process checklist validation (required before any software build): Run a supervised paper pilot to verify that a structured six-field laminated checklist can produce usable, consistent handover records.
• • Proposed/unvalidated pilot design: 2-week supervised pilot OR at least 10 handovers (whichever reaches target first); map each paper entry to the six fields; supervisor-led mapping sessions daily during pilot.
• • Proposed/unvalidated success criteria (labelled PROPOSED, UNVALIDATED): >=90% field completeness (all six fields filled), <=10% ambiguous owner/next-action cases, >=80% acknowledgements recorded within 15 minutes of shift start, supervisor confirms 1:1 map for >=90% sampled entries. These targets are draft and must be treated as unvalidated.
• • If Gate A passes, proceed to a tightly scoped software prototype decision gate. If Gate A fails, iterate the paper checklist (UX, field wording, placement) before considering software.
• Decision gate B — Does software add measurable value over validated paper checklist?: Only considered after Gate A passes. Run a small software pilot on the same device using a local prototype and compare measured outcomes vs the validated paper baseline.
• • Proposed/unvalidated comparison metrics: completeness, owner/next-action ambiguity rate, acknowledgement latency, supervisor review time per handover, and error/merge incidents during handover. Define measurement method and sample size before the comparison. All numeric thresholds are proposed and unvalidated.
• • Software decision acceptance requires a pre-agreed improvement margin over paper (e.g., relative improvement in completeness or reduction in ambiguity) and evidence that single-device constraints (availability, origin stability) do not negate benefits.
• Operational design choices to lock before any build: (1) Acknowledgement is explicitly defined as a receipt record only — it must never reassign ownership. (2) Export (JSON/CSV) is provided for backup and supervisor review; export does NOT imply automatic restore/import capability unless the team explicitly adds import with matching acceptance criteria. (3) Keep all development waves strictly sequential under one builder (no parallel builds touching shared schema/storage files). (4) Remove telemetry and the pilot comparison view from the first software iteration; comparison view can be a separate later module only after Gate A.

Concerns retained

• Unresolved assumptions (preserve these as unresolved): exact tablet model and browser (affects IndexedDB behavior and touch layout); who will enter initials for acknowledgement and how identity ambiguity is resolved (initials vs full name); availability policy for the single shared device and human process for device unavailability; whether JSON import/restore is required (conflict in current drafts); supervisor acceptance criteria for a successful paper pilot and what sample size/timeframe stakeholders consider sufficient; real ergonomic needs of operators (no real user interviews have been done).
• Scope exclusions (explicit, preserved): No backend/cloud/auth, no notifications, no integrations, no AI features, no machine control or safety sign-off within the app, no automated operational decisions; first software version excludes telemetry and the supervisor comparison view. These exclusions must remain unless stakeholders explicitly vote to expand scope after Gate A.
• Export/restore concern: current materials mix export and optional import. Recommendation: treat export as outbound-only (no implied restore) for the prototype unless a separate explicit decision and acceptance tests add import/restore. If import is added later, add acceptance tests that explicitly verify restore correctness and document provenance/consent.
• Process/organizational concern: single-device approach depends on device origin stability (same file/URL/origin). If browser origin changes (e.g., file:// vs http://, different base path), IndexedDB data may be siloed or lost; pick and freeze the device + origin before testing persistence.
• Sequencing concern: ensure development waves are sequential and managed by one builder; current draft conflicting language (parallel vs single-builder) must be corrected before any development work starts.

Technical specification and consistency · focused review

• Observations (synthetic inputs preserved): three source cards define a single-device local handover log, six core fields (equipment_label, issue_short, current_owner, next_action, status, timestamp) plus acknowledge metadata and exports; original draft added telemetry, an optional JSON import, a paper-comparison view and a parallel first wave—these conflict with steering constraints.
• Design choices (explicit): use vanilla JavaScript, direct IndexedDB (no libraries), serve bundled static files at stable origin http://localhost:4173, single-device only, no external/network calls, unresolved-first ordering in UI, acknowledgement records receipt only (does NOT change current_owner), provide JSON and human-readable CSV export, explicitly exclude JSON import/restore from the product and remove all import acceptance checks, two sequential build waves under one builder, exclude telemetry and the paper-comparison view from delivered scope.
• Untested assumptions (preserved unresolved): which tablet/browser will be used for the pilot (affects touch layout and IndexedDB behaviour); who exactly will enter initials for acknowledge and whether initials are sufficient to avoid ambiguity; device-availability policy and recovery process expectations; whether supervisor requires in-app restore (explicitly excluded) or will accept export-only backup.
• Key explicit constraint: export-only does NOT imply in-app recovery. Exported files are backups for external/archive use; the app will not provide an import/restore acceptance path in this specification.
• Deployment note: the app is a static SPA served from http://localhost:4173 on the shared device; all feature behaviour must be verifiable with devtools network panel showing zero outbound network requests during normal use.

Recommendations

• Acceptance checks (testable, before pilot):
• 1. Persistence: create three sample items (using UI), close and restart the browser on the device served from http://localhost:4173, verify all items persist and created_at/updated_at remain unchanged. (Manual)
• 2. Unresolved-first ordering: with mixed-status items present, UI lists items with status open and awaiting_review before closed; within each status sort by updated_at descending. (Manual/automated UI check)
• 3. Acknowledge behaviour: activating acknowledge prompts for initials, sets acknowledged_by and acknowledged_at, and does NOT modify current_owner or status fields. Verify stored record fields after acknowledge. (Manual/automated check against IndexedDB record)
• 4. Export correctness: JSON export produces a single syntactically valid JSON file containing every handover_item record including created_at, updated_at and acknowledged_* fields; CSV export produces a human-readable file with a header row mapping the six core fields plus acknowledge metadata. Validate JSON.parse succeeds and CSV has expected column count. (Automated unit test + manual open)
• 5. No import/restore acceptance: explicitly do NOT include any import or restore acceptance checks. Document that the app does not offer in-app JSON restore and that exports are archival only. (Documentation check)
• 6. No-network rule: exercising full CRUD and export flows produces zero outbound network requests (devtools network panel shows none). (Manual check)
• 7. Single-device deployment check: app served from http://localhost:4173 on the target device works offline (no network) and preserves data across browser restart and device power cycle. (Manual)
• 8. Developer process: enforce single-builder rule and sequential waves: verify only one builder works at a time on sharedFiles (human review of Git history / gated merges). (Process check)
• 9. Accessibility/ergonomics smoke: tablet-layout form fields are touch-sized, input validation enforces required fields and issue_short max length 140 characters. (Manual review)
• Operational recommendations:
• • Keep paper-process pilot and its gate separate from any later software-vs-paper value comparison; run the supervised paper checklist pilot first (instructions documented) before committing to software changes.
• • Document export-only recovery clearly in user guidance and supervisor instructions; provide procedures for manual reconstruction if required.
• • Preserve unresolved assumptions; capture them in the pilot checklist as explicit questions to answer.

Concerns retained

• Resolved draft conflicts (explicit):
• 1. Wave sequencing conflict: original draft listed Wave 1 as 'parallel' while agentConcurrency allowed one builder. Resolved: two waves defined and strictly sequential; only one builder permitted at all times.
• 2. Acknowledge semantics conflict: earlier text implied acknowledge might 'claim' ownership. Resolved: acknowledge records receipt only (acknowledged_by, acknowledged_at) and MUST NOT change current_owner or status; acceptance checks reflect this.
• 3. Telemetry and paper-comparison conflict: module 3 previously added telemetry and a paper comparison view. Resolved: telemetry and the paper-comparison view are removed from the delivered scope and from acceptance criteria for both waves.
• 4. JSON import/restore conflict: earlier stories alternately required and made import optional. Resolved: JSON import/restore is explicitly excluded; all import-related acceptance checks removed. Export remains available but is not a restore mechanism.
• Remaining concerns / risks (untested):
• • Tablet/browser choice unknown: IndexedDB quirks vary by browser and platform; pilot must choose and record exact device and browser. (untested assumption)
• • Identity ambiguity: initials may be ambiguous; responsibility for resolving identity outside the app must be documented. (untested assumption)
• • Single-device failure mode: if the tablet is unavailable or origin changes (different hostname/port), data may be inaccessible; produce administrative recovery guidance. (operational risk)
• • Export-only limitation: excluding import makes in-app recovery impossible; supervisors must accept manual restore procedures or keep exported snapshots. This may affect willingness to adopt software.
• • Do not claim the app makes safety decisions; supervisors retain all operational authority outside the app.

Orchestrator conclusion

Integrated the workers into a conditional, unbuilt software draft. The three canvas cards are the only cited inputs; the handover notes are synthetic.

Agree the paper gate and operational policies before authorizing a prototype; no files were generated, code compiled or tests executed.

Orchestrator review

These decisions are the actual final orchestrator output. They describe a light draft, not a completed build or human handoff approval.

Integrated the workers into a conditional, unbuilt software draft. The three canvas cards are the only cited inputs; the handover notes are synthetic.

Accepted

• Six core fields, unresolved-first display, local JSON/CSV export and receipt-only acknowledgement.
• Vanilla JavaScript, direct IndexedDB and the proposed stable origin http://localhost:4173.
• A paper-process gate before building and a separate, later software-versus-paper value comparison.

Changed

• Replaced the draft's parallel first wave with two sequential waves under one builder.
• Made JSON import/restore explicitly out of scope and removed its acceptance path.
• Replaced the worker's styled Mermaid diagram with a simple flowchart using separate declarations and edges.
• Omitted the worker's proposed pilot numbers: duration, sample size and thresholds need agreement rather than implied validation.

Rejected

• Telemetry and an in-app paper-comparison view.
• Any interpretation of acknowledgement as claiming or reassigning an issue.
• Export as a promise of in-app recovery, or the software plan as safety approval.

Unresolved

• Device, browser, origin operation and single-device availability.
• Identity, privacy, retention and external recovery policies.
• Paper pilot criteria, later comparison method and real ergonomic needs.
• Physical suitability of tablet placement and paper-checklist materials; no hardware stand is specified or approved.

Next action

Agree the paper gate and operational policies before authorizing a prototype; no files were generated, code compiled or tests executed.

Execution: cookbook-runner. Focused review calls were reconciled into an integrated result. This recipe-specific API script does not claim that the native Synatrail UI provides this model split.

Editorial review after export

This section was authored separately after the provider responses. It does not change the generated package or claim model approval.

Timing: statements about no files being generated refer to implementation artifacts at the time of the model response. The cookbook runner subsequently exported the planning documents and source files linked here. No product implementation or physical test was performed. Any later diagram rendering or CAD compilation has its own separate evidence.

Adjustable bench inspection fixture — LIGHT review

A proposed manually adjusted fixture for positioning a de-energized sample during bench inspection.

Kind: hardware · Investigation: Adjustable bench inspection fixture · Composed: 2026-10-01T21:14:55.266Z · Model details: see the original download

1. Problem space

Who: A person conducting a proposed bench inspection.

Pain: A small sample may need positioning and visual access; repeatability and holding performance have not been established.

Context: Fictional teaching case. The supplied mechanical parameters are design constraints, not measured geometry or evidence of a working fixture.

Evidence: fixture-question Hold the sample for inspection; fixture-dimensions Fixed dimensions and interfaces; fixture-concept Three modules, twenty proposed parts

2. Solution idea

Review the locked multipart fixture as structural supports, manual adjustment interfaces, and assembly with proposed checks. A separate deterministic CAD builder may later construct and measure geometry.

Differentiators

• Manual adjustment only
• Explicit review of coordinate conflicts before any claim of usable travel

Non-goals

• Manufacturing approval
• Holding-force or repeatability claims
• Motorization or machine control
• Physical testing in this package

3. Concept

User journey

1. Review interfaces and the proposed motion envelope before assembly planning.
2. Plan the base, supports, guides, jaws and pads without assuming missing passages or attachments.
3. Plan the screw, nut and knob interfaces; defer physical assembly and checks until conflicts are resolved.

Success criteria

• The locked parameter contract is reproduced without alteration.
• The 78 mm nominal opening is identified as conditional on inward-facing pads.
• The 60 mm opening-direction conflict and unresolved interfaces are recorded rather than treated as usable motion.

4. Data

Entities

Evidence used as data

5. Architecture

A mechanical planning package, not an implemented device or CAD assembly. The locked contract governs later deterministic CAD work; this review records conflicts without modifying it.

Components

Interfaces

Deployment: None. CAD/source generation, geometric measurements, fabrication and physical checks are separate later operations.

6. Modules

7. Build waves

Wave 1 · Wave 1 — establish structural interfaces (sequential)

Document supplied envelopes and unresolved support, guide and jaw interfaces.

Modules: m1

Wave 2 · Wave 2 — adjustment, then checks (sequential)

Review M2 before M3; stop at conflicts and do not infer a working assembly.

Modules: m2, m3

8. PRDs

m1

S1 · Map base, feet and end supports

• Record supplied envelopes and coordinate origin; mark attachment and foot placement interfaces unspecified.

S2 · Map rods, jaws, pads and bushings

• Record rod axes through jaw envelopes; mark passages, bushing allocation, seating and retention unresolved.

m2

S3 · Review screw, nut and knob

• Record screw-envelope crossings and missing passages, thread, nut restraint, axial retention and knob coupling.

S4 · Review opening and travel

• Show conditional 78 mm pad opening and both proposed 60 mm endpoints; flag the 8 mm opening-end support overlap.

m3

S5 · Reconcile parts and assembly order

• List only named parts; label four bushings an inferred allocation and do not invent fastening hardware.

S6 · Plan conditional checks

• Separate later CAD interference review from unperformed, non-destructive visual access and unloaded manual checks.

9. Bill of materials

10. Geometry

Each part below gets parametric source, STEP/STL exports and dimensioned drawings in cad/<part>/ once its geometry is generated; the runner checks the measured envelope and mass against these values.

Design system

• Label constraints, inferences and unknowns separately.
• Show interference before assembly or motion claims.

Tone: Specific, conditional and non-certifying. · Colors: unspecified · Typography: Plain labels and millimetre dimensions.

Agent concurrency

Up to 1 builder(s) in parallel.

Shared files (serialize edits)

• mechanicalDesign JSON contract

Rules

• One builder; two sequential waves.
• Do not edit the locked contract.
• Stop rather than invent passages, fasteners, tolerances or a travel remedy.

Controls and tests

Dependencies

Risks

Open questions

• Which jaw faces carry the pads, and how are pads attached?
• How many bushings are intended, where are they seated, and how are they retained?
• What passages, attachments, screw thrust support, nut restraint and knob coupling are intended?
• What thread, fit, friction, allowable load and motion protection would be specified?
• How is the foot-to-base interface located relative to the stated origin?
• How will later CAD review address the opening-end overlap without silently changing this contract?
• What electrical integration, if any, is intended? None is specified or implemented.
• What physical prototype and non-destructive validation would be needed before any performance claim?

Evidence

• fixture-question Hold the sample for inspection
• fixture-dimensions Fixed dimensions and interfaces
• fixture-concept Three modules, twenty proposed parts

Recorded investigation basis

Frozen scope: my canvas revision 1

No linked decision is inferred; review the retained records before treating this draft as a commitment.

Selected concept

No selected named concept was present in the frozen package scope.

Human decision records

No selected human concept decision record.

Exact selected material

• fixture-question Hold the sample for inspection (content 1)
• fixture-dimensions Fixed dimensions and interfaces (content 1)
• fixture-concept Three modules, twenty proposed parts (content 1)

Frozen specification

Export state: Needs review · Specification revision: 1

Specification digest: 484940da9d063d9e464725c080373a09824f12502de03db3496321491c07c0e7

No human approval for handoff is recorded for this exact specification revision. Downloading or copying this export does not approve it.

R1 · revision 1 · Needs review

Preserve the supplied mechanicalDesign as a locked, proposed parameter contract.

Acceptance

• Reproduce its schema, coordinate system, parameters and limitations exactly; make no silent dimension changes or added parts. Describe CAD generation and measured geometry validation as separate later operations.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-dimensions, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

None.

Unresolved

• No compiled CAD or measured geometry is supplied.

R2 · revision 1 · Needs review

Document conditional opening and the proposed travel conflict.

Acceptance

• Jaw inner-face gap is 84 mm; inward-facing 3 mm pads on both faces imply 78 mm. From moving-jaw X142..160, closing by 60 mm gives X82..100; opening by 60 mm gives X202..220. The latter overlaps right-support X212..228 by 8 mm and reaches the rod endpoint X220. Do not infer usable travel, rod engagement or a remedy.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-dimensions, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Pads face inward; positive X opens the moving jaw.

Unresolved

• Pad placement, endpoint clearance and rod engagement.

R3 · revision 1 · Needs review

Keep guidance and screw interfaces explicitly unresolved.

Acceptance

• Identify guide axes Y45/135 at Z32 and screw axis Y90 at Z32 crossing stated part envelopes. Nominal Ø10/Ø10.4 and Ø16/Ø16.2 diameters do not validate sliding or retention. Do not assume passages, housing locations, thread engagement, nut anti-rotation, screw thrust support or knob coupling. Jaw minimum Z11 above base top Z10 implies only a nominal 1 mm gap.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-dimensions, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• The displayed base clearance refers to the jaw-to-base gap.

Unresolved

• Fits, loads, friction, passages, retention and protection against overtravel.

R4 · revision 1 · Needs review

Reconcile the named-part BOM without treating the count as proof of completeness.

Acceptance

• Count base 1, rods 2, supports 2, jaws 2, pads 2, screw 1, nut 1, knob 1 and feet 4: 16 instances. Four bushings would make 20, but their quantity and allocation are inferred, not locked. Do not add fastening hardware or claim that 20 parts establish usefulness, retention or manufacturing readiness.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-concept, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Four bushings are a candidate allocation solely for count reconciliation.

Unresolved

• Bushing allocation and all unspecified attachments.

R5 · revision 1 · Needs review

Sequence review and proposed checks without implying execution.

Acceptance

• Review interfaces and travel first; then plan base/feet/supports, guides/jaws/pads, and screw/nut/knob. Defer geometry measurement to separate CAD work. Only after conflicts and interfaces are resolved, propose visual access and unloaded, slow manual adjustment with a stop at suspected interference. Report no fabricated prototype, sample-damage test, repeatability, holding force or successful inspection.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-question, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-concept, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

None.

Unresolved

• Prototype validation and any electrical integration are outside this review.

Exact reference availability

• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-dimensions, contentRevision=1 — current
• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-concept, contentRevision=1 — current
• canvas=my, nodeId=fixture-question, contentRevision=1 — current

Honest unresolved context

Contradictions, risks and missing evidence

• Opening-direction travel intersects the right end support. — Flag the 8 mm envelope overlap; do not call 60 mm usable or change coordinates.
• Rod and screw crossings lack specified passages and retention. — Keep interfaces unresolved pending separate CAD review and design decisions.
• Twenty named instances may conceal unspecified attachment hardware. — Treat four bushings as inferred and the count as provisional, not a complete assembly specification.

Risks accepted for this exact handoff

None. This revision has no handoff approval.

Unanswered questions

• Which jaw faces carry the pads, and how are pads attached?
• How many bushings are intended, where are they seated, and how are they retained?
• What passages, attachments, screw thrust support, nut restraint and knob coupling are intended?
• What thread, fit, friction, allowable load and motion protection would be specified?
• How is the foot-to-base interface located relative to the stated origin?
• How will later CAD review address the opening-end overlap without silently changing this contract?
• What electrical integration, if any, is intended? None is specified or implemented.
• What physical prototype and non-destructive validation would be needed before any performance claim?
• No compiled CAD or measured geometry is supplied.
• Pad placement, endpoint clearance and rod engagement.
• Fits, loads, friction, passages, retention and protection against overtravel.
• Bushing allocation and all unspecified attachments.
• Prototype validation and any electrical integration are outside this review.

Assumptions

• Pads face inward; positive X opens the moving jaw.
• The displayed base clearance refers to the jaw-to-base gap.
• Four bushings are a candidate allocation solely for count reconciliation.

Requirements without an exact decision record

• R1
• R2
• R3
• R4
• R5

Pending claims / requirements awaiting human review

• R1
• R2
• R3
• R4
• R5

Some retained historical material is unavailable. Its frozen identifiers remain visible, but this export does not restore or disclose the unavailable private content.

PRD · Structural and support parts

Bound the base, supports, feet, guides, jaws, pads and bushing interfaces.

S1 · Map base, feet and end supports

Acceptance:

• Record supplied envelopes and coordinate origin; mark attachment and foot placement interfaces unspecified.

S2 · Map rods, jaws, pads and bushings

Acceptance:

• Record rod axes through jaw envelopes; mark passages, bushing allocation, seating and retention unresolved.

PRD · Manual jaw adjustment and interfaces

Review screw, nut, knob, opening and travel without asserting operability. Depends on: m1

S3 · Review screw, nut and knob

Acceptance:

• Record screw-envelope crossings and missing passages, thread, nut restraint, axial retention and knob coupling.

S4 · Review opening and travel

Acceptance:

• Show conditional 78 mm pad opening and both proposed 60 mm endpoints; flag the 8 mm opening-end support overlap.

PRD · Assembly and proposed bench checks

Reconcile named parts and plan conditional CAD and non-destructive checks. Depends on: m1, m2

S5 · Reconcile parts and assembly order

Acceptance:

• List only named parts; label four bushings an inferred allocation and do not invent fastening hardware.

S6 · Plan conditional checks

Acceptance:

• Separate later CAD interference review from unperformed, non-destructive visual access and unloaded manual checks.

AGENTS.md

You are building Adjustable bench inspection fixture — LIGHT review (hardware). Read PACKAGE.md first; it is the complete product definition. Do not widen the scope beyond it.

Frozen specification revision 1 · Needs review. Downloading this archive did not approve it. Resolve every item marked unresolved or awaiting review instead of treating it as verified.

Order of work

1. Wave 1 — establish structural interfaces (sequential): prd/m1.md — Document supplied envelopes and unresolved support, guide and jaw interfaces.
2. Wave 2 — adjustment, then checks (sequential): prd/m2.md, prd/m3.md — Review M2 before M3; stop at conflicts and do not infer a working assembly.

Concurrency

At most 1 builder(s) at once. Serialize edits to: mechanicalDesign JSON contract.

• One builder; two sequential waves.
• Do not edit the locked contract.
• Stop rather than invent passages, fasteners, tolerances or a travel remedy.

Definition of done

• Contract integrity: Compare the later builder input with the supplied JSON. (Exact structural JSON comparison; no dimension edits.)
• Opening: Review pad orientation and nominal gap. (Calculate 142 − (40 + 18) − 2 × 3 = 78 mm, conditional on inward pads.)
• Travel: Review both endpoints against supports and rods. (Compare X82..100 and X202..220 with support X212..228 and rod end X220.)
• Interfaces: Review passages, fits, thread and retention. (Mark each absent definition unresolved; defer CAD geometry review.)
• Future bench checks: Propose visual access and unloaded slow adjustment only after conflicts are resolved. (Planning only; stop at suspected interference; record no physical result.)

CAD

If generated artifacts are present, cad/<part>/ holds their parametric source and exported views. The dimensions and mass in PACKAGE.md are design requirements, not measurements or proof of manufacture. Inspect each generated result and its checks before use.

Every story in prd/ must meet its acceptance criteria before the wave is complete. Ask a human when an open question in PACKAGE.md blocks a decision; do not guess.

Adjustable bench inspection fixture

Actual worker outputs; supplied dimensions are design constraints, not measurements.

Fit and manual motion review · focused review

• Opening arithmetic agrees with the supplied values: the jaw inner-face gap is 142 − (40 + 18) = 84 mm. If both 3 mm pads sit on the inward-facing jaw faces, the nominal pad-to-pad opening is 78 mm. That pad orientation and placement are assumptions, not fully specified interfaces.
• Taking the initial moving-jaw position as X142..160 and positive X as opening, 60 mm of closing travel moves it to X82..100; 60 mm of opening travel moves it to X202..220. The latter overlaps the end-support envelope X212..228 by 8 mm. The proposed travel therefore conflicts with the supplied support envelope in the opening direction unless the later CAD review establishes a compatible arrangement; do not redefine travel or support coordinates here.
• At the opening endpoint, the moving jaw also reaches the guide-rod endpoint at X220. The supplied coordinates do not establish rod engagement through the bushings at that limit, nor clearance between the jaw and the right support.
• Both guide axes (Y45/135, Z32) pass through the stated jaw envelopes. The proposed Ø10 rods and Ø10.4 bushing bores are dimensionally compatible as nominal diameters, but the 0.4 mm diametral difference is not a validated fit. Bushing orientation, retention, and housing-bore fit are unspecified; the Ø16 bushing OD and Ø16.2 housing bore likewise do not establish retention or acceptable motion.
• The Ø8 screw axis (Y90, Z32) lies within the jaw and end-support envelopes. No screw passages through either support or jaw are specified. The screw axis also intersects the fixed-jaw envelope, while the nut-to-moving-jaw interface is not defined. Treat these as unresolved geometry/interface conflicts, not as implicitly provided holes.
• The screw spans X8..228, crossing both end-support envelopes (X12..28 and X212..228). A rotating screw needs suitable passages and an axial-retention/bearing arrangement relative to the frame; neither is specified. To translate the moving jaw, the nut must engage the screw and be restrained from rotating relative to the jaw. Thread form, handedness, engagement, and nut retention are unvalidated.
• The knob occupies X−2..8 and meets the stated screw start at X8, but the contract gives no attachment or torque-transfer interface. Jaw/pad attachment, support-to-base attachment, and foot attachment are also unspecified. No fasteners or fastening features are included in the supplied contract.
• A consistent 20-instance proposed-parts count is possible without adding parts: base 1, guide rods 2, end supports 2, jaws 2, pads 2, bushings 4, lead screw 1, nut 1, knob 1, feet 4; total 20. This is a quantity reconciliation only, not a complete fastening or retention specification.

Recommendations

• Keep the three supplied investigation nodes as the only nodes. For the later LIGHT package, use three modules with two story headings each: (1) structural/support parts—base, supports and feet; guide rods, jaw guidance and bushings; (2) manual adjustment/interfaces—screw, nut and knob; jaw/pad opening and travel; (3) assembly and proposed checks—assembly sequence; geometry/interface checks. This is an outline, not the package draft.
• In the separate CAD review, check the stated opening and pad placement, both travel endpoints, jaw-to-support overlap, rod engagement at endpoints, and all rod/screw passages through supports and jaws. Preserve the locked coordinates and report any resulting conflicts rather than shifting parts.
• Check the proposed bushing housing and rod clearances from the supplied nominal diameters, while treating fit, retention, and sliding behavior as unvalidated. Check the screw/nut engagement, nut anti-rotation, screw axial retention, support passages, and knob attachment as explicit unresolved interfaces.
• Use a proposed assembly/check flow that first resolves support and attachment interfaces, then guide and jaw interfaces, then screw/nut/knob interfaces, and finally performs separate CAD geometry checks. Any later physical bench checks would be proposals only; no motion, holding force, repeatability, or physical build is established here.

Concerns

• The 60 mm opening-direction travel conflicts with the right end-support envelope by 8 mm, and the moving jaw reaches the guide-rod endpoint at that limit.
• The supplied contract does not define passages for the rods or screw, screw bearings/axial retention, nut anti-rotation/retention, threads, knob attachment, pad placement/attachment, support attachment, or foot attachment.
• The displayed 1 mm base clearance is not tied to a fully described interface. Jaw minimum Z11 above the base top at Z10 gives a nominal 1 mm gap, but the contract does not clarify whether that is the intended clearance or how it is maintained.
• The simplified nominal diameters do not establish acceptable fits, friction, travel, or manual operation. No measured geometry, manufacturing readiness, or engineering validation is claimed.

Assembly, BOM and proposed checks · focused review

• Candidate BOM, counting only named parts: base ×1; guide rods ×2; end supports ×2; jaws ×2; pads ×2; bushings ×4 (inferred allocation); lead screw ×1; nut ×1; knob ×1; feet ×4. This totals 20 meaningful components only if four bushings are used. The contract specifies bushing dimensions, not quantity or allocation; do not treat ×4 as locked.
• Opening arithmetic: jaw inner-face gap is 142 − (40 + 18) = 84 mm before pads. If 3 mm pads are placed on both inward-facing jaw surfaces, the nominal gap is 78 mm. Pad mounting faces and placement remain assumptions for later CAD review.
• The stated 60 mm travel conflicts with the end-support envelope at the opening end: the moving jaw at X202..220 overlaps the support at X212..228 by 8 mm. At the closing end it is at X82..100. Do not redefine travel or infer usable travel from these positions.
• Both Ø10 rods run on X through the jaw/support region, and the Ø8 screw axis at Y90/Z32 crosses the support and jaw envelopes. The contract does not specify the required rod passages, bushing locations/retention, screw passages or bearing/axial-retention interfaces. These overlaps may be intended interfaces, but are not validated clearances.
• The nut’s 18 mm outer diameter and 14 mm length, the screw’s simplified thread, and their engagement/retention in the moving jaw are not defined as a validated interface. The knob and screw meet at their stated X extents, but the coupling or retention method is unspecified.
• No fasteners or fastening positions are specified for pads, supports, knob, bushings or feet. The proposed BOM therefore counts named components only; adding required fastening or retention hardware later would change the component count.

Recommendations

• Keep this review within the three supplied investigation nodes: fixture-question (use case), fixture-dimensions (locked constraints and conflicts), and fixture-concept (candidate parts and later checks). Preserve the planned three-module/two-story organization in the later package; do not add investigation nodes here.
• Use the BOM above as a proposed count, explicitly labeling the four-bushing allocation as an inference made to reconcile the 20-part target. Resolve bushing quantity and placement, and whether any fastening/retention hardware is included, before treating the count as settled.
• Proposed assembly/check flow, for later CAD review and a future non-destructive bench check only: confirm interfaces and travel envelope → place feet and base → locate supports and guide rods → fit/retain bushings if their allocation is resolved → assemble fixed jaw and pads → fit moving jaw to rods → engage nut and screw → attach knob → inspect access and unloaded manual motion. Do not force movement through a suspected interference.
• Before any physical check, review the support overlap at the 60 mm opening position and the rod/screw passages in CAD. Do not call the stated 60 mm travel usable until that conflict and the interfaces are resolved.
• Proposed non-destructive checks, not performed: visually inspect access around a suitable de-energized sample without applying clamping load; observe jaw position and approach from the intended inspection directions; turn the knob slowly with the fixture unloaded and stop if binding or interference is evident. Do not claim repeatability, holding force, or successful sample inspection from these checks.
• Keep any later bench observation qualitative and bounded to access, positioning and manual adjustment. Do not perform a sample-damage test or infer load capacity from hand operation.

Concerns

• The opening-end jaw/support overlap is a direct coordinate-envelope conflict with the proposed 60 mm travel, not merely an unspecified tolerance.
• Four bushings make the proposed named-part BOM total 20, but neither that quantity nor whether bushings belong in the supports, moving jaw, or elsewhere is locked by the contract.
• The defined dimensions do not establish assembly retention, fastening, screw thrust support, threaded engagement, pad attachment, or foot attachment.
• The simplified bores and thread, nominal opening, and proposed travel do not establish fit, smooth motion, positioning repeatability, or holding performance.

Final integration

Integrated both worker reviews as one bounded LIGHT proposal. Their coordinate findings agree; neither review establishes a working mechanism.

Orchestrator review

Actual model decisions for a light draft. No human approval or executed product test is implied.

Integrated both worker reviews as one bounded LIGHT proposal. Their coordinate findings agree; neither review establishes a working mechanism.

Accepted

• Accept both workers' 84 mm jaw-face arithmetic and conditional 78 mm inward-pad opening.
• Accept their explicit X202..220 versus X212..228 opening-end overlap of 8 mm, and their warning about the rod endpoint.
• Accept the named-part BOM as a provisional 20-instance reconciliation only when four bushings are inferred.
• Accept the proposed ordering of interface review before CAD review and any later physical check.

Changed

• Replace both workers' diagrams with one seven-node Mermaid flow. Its final node is a conditional check proposal, not an executed check.
• Keep four bushings visibly provisional in the BOM and geometry summary; the contract locks bushing dimensions but not quantity or placement.
• Treat the jaw-to-base 1 mm gap as a coordinate inference rather than validated maintained clearance.

Rejected

• Reject any interpretation that the proposed 60 mm opening motion is demonstrated usable.
• Reject treating nominal bore differences, a 20-part count or a proposed assembly order as proof of fit, retention, usefulness or manufacturing readiness.
• Reject implicit holes, threads, fasteners, bearing features or a geometry change as a silent solution.

Unresolved

• Opening-end interference, endpoint rod engagement, passages and fastening.
• Bushing allocation and fits; screw thread, thrust support, nut restraint and knob coupling.
• Loads, friction, motion protection, electrical integration and physical prototype validation.

Next action

Obtain explicit interface and travel decisions before separate CAD construction and geometric review; preserve the supplied contract until any proposed revision is reviewed openly.

Export timing

The runner exported these planning files after the model response. Later CAD compilation, measured geometry and rendering are separate operations with their own evidence. They are not physical testing.

Adjustable inspection fixture

This is actual parametric CAD compiled from a supplied, provider-reviewed mechanical contract. The API models reviewed the contract and plan. Codex authored the separate Python CAD implementation; no claim is made that the models emitted this source.

The assembly contains 20 meaningful component instances and 0 explicitly counted fastener envelopes, representing 10 distinct designs and 4 functional subassemblies. Counts come from the same inventory exported to STEP, GLB and BOM.

• Open assembly.step for named, colored BRep solids and native CAD hierarchy. STEP uses millimetres and Z up.
• Open assembly.glb for the assembled model or exploded.glb for the presentation exploded view. GLB uses metres and Y up; named leaf nodes have identity transforms. Geometry is mapped from CAD (x,y,z) mm to (x,z,-y)/1000 metres.
• parts.json records each node name, design ID, functional group and explosion offset in original CAD XYZ millimetres.
• BOM.csv identifies every instance; parts/ contains its individual STL in global CAD millimetres. STL has no intrinsic unit metadata.
• assembled, exploded and engineering-drawing SVG/PNG files render the actual mesh. detail-sheets/ provides readable subassembly views.
• mechanical-design.json is the actual saved contract; source.py is its editable parametric implementation.
• cad-manifest.json records BRep validity, native STEP round-trip, exact selected clearance/interference checks and file hashes.

Validation covers the static shown pose. Digital checks are not a motion study, tolerance stack, physical prototype, structural assessment or certification. Motors, bearings, optics and connectors are nominal envelopes. Screw threads and internal bearing mechanisms are simplified. Exploded offsets are presentation transforms, not a verified assembly path.

Reproduce from the repository: node scripts/cookbook-mechanical-render.mjs --only=inspection-fixture. It uses the existing offline ce-spec-native:spec-final-2 Docker image with build123d 0.11.1, Python 3 with NumPy/Pillow, and sharp. The container sees only an isolated scratch directory and has no network access. There are no API calls or commissioned specification jobs.

Builder implementation decisions — not model approvals

• Added explicit through-bores for the rods and screw, replaceable bushing seats, a nominal travel nut and a bored handwheel; these are CAD implementation details, not tested retention interfaces.
• The shown jaw opening is 78 mm. The proposed 60 mm stroke is a closing-direction hypothesis only; opening by 60 mm would collide with the right support. No motion simulation was performed.

Remaining engineering conflicts

• Guide/screw axial retention, jaw locking, practical travel stops and manufacturing fits remain undefined.

Actual selected geometry results

5 of 5 selected clearance/interference checks pass in the shown static pose. The separate valid-solid and STEP round-trip checks pass. These are computational results, not physical testing.

From model proposal to compiled CAD

This crosswalk was authored after the model review and CAD compilation. The model proposal IDs and the CAD instance IDs are separate namespaces. Mapping a part does not mean that the model approved its later construction details.

Sources: actual orchestrator review, mechanical contract, compiled inventory, CAD implementation and checks, machine-readable crosswalk and bound checks.

The inventory contains 20 component instances and 0 fastener envelopes, with 10 distinct non-fastener designs and 4 functional subassemblies. These physical groups sit inside the three LIGHT planning modules.

Part crosswalk

Implementation decisions and limits

• Added explicit through-bores for the rods and screw, replaceable bushing seats, a nominal travel nut and a bored handwheel; these are CAD implementation details, not tested retention interfaces.
• The shown jaw opening is 78 mm. The proposed 60 mm stroke is a closing-direction hypothesis only; opening by 60 mm would collide with the right support. No motion simulation was performed.
• The CAD author implemented the proposal of four bushings, two per jaw, and placed both pads inward. The model had explicitly treated the bushing count/allocation as provisional.
• The CAD source adds rod/screw passages and bushing seats. The source and static gaps do not establish tested attachment, thrust retention, screw engagement or holding force.

Unresolved in the CAD author’s own manifest:

• Guide/screw axial retention, jaw locking, practical travel stops and manufacturing fits remain undefined.

Feet extend below the base-origin plane as an explicit authored placement. The model-reviewed outer dimensions remain traceable; added features and extra designs are identified separately.

Independent inventory comparison: 34 selected bounds, positions and counts agree within 0.0001 mm numeric tolerance. This checks the compiled inventory against the supplied values; it does not repeat the CAD kernel or prove that every interface, bore, wall, stroke or attachment is correct.

The 78 mm pad gap is the compiled static pose. A 60 mm opening stroke would conflict with the right support. Closing-direction travel remains a hypothesis, and no motion simulation or retention test is claimed.

Benchtop XYZ inspection workstation — LIGHT

One unchanged mechanical contract, one proposed setup manifest and one staff-controlled local inspection handoff.

Kind: hybrid · Investigation: Benchtop XYZ inspection workstation · Composed: 2026-10-01T21:19:57.622Z · Model details: see the original download

1. Problem space

Who: Setup operators, staff reviewers and receiving service staff in a fictional teaching case.

Pain: Mechanical setup declarations, inspection records and handoffs can disagree or become stale.

Context: Planning only. Supplied dimensions are constraints, not measurements. CAD construction, software implementation and validation are separate later operations.

Evidence: workstation-question One setup, one inspection handoff; workstation-dimensions Locked workstation geometry; workstation-concept Mechanical interfaces meet the staff record

2. Solution idea

Preserve the complete supplied mechanicalDesign and organize its interfaces into two mechanical modules and one local record module. A shared identifier manifest links staff declarations to the unchanged contract without asserting physical verification.

Differentiators

• Exactly three existing investigation nodes, all revision 1, human-origin and unassessed.
• One proposed part/subassembly crosswalk shared by mechanical review and staff records.
• Reference and revision checks block record transitions only; they never command physical action.
• Engineering limitations remain visible even when record references agree.

Non-goals

• CAD/source generation or measured geometry validation in this draft.
• Powered operation, instrument integration, motor control or machine protection implementation.
• Optical, structural, thermal, electrical, manufacturing or safety approval.
• Real images, names, customer information, cloud storage, external uploads or authentication claims.
• Adding parts merely to reach complexity targets.

3. Concept

User journey

1. Mechanical reviewer catalogs the supplied contract and unresolved interfaces under the shared identifiers.
2. Setup operator selects M-SETUP-r1 and declares a synthetic setup using FX-DECK-GRID-r1.
3. Operator completes explicit record checks; the proposed application compares references and the latest local revision.
4. Reference problems require staff reconciliation; matching references permit record-only confirmation.
5. Operator offers a handoff containing the declared setup and engineering limitations; receiving service staff acknowledges receipt.
6. A declared adjustment, fixture change or changed manifest invalidates the prior current confirmation and requires renewed review.

Success criteria

• The locked mechanicalDesign is preserved field-for-field, including array order and limitations.
• Three modules contain exactly six stories; no investigation nodes are added.
• Every referenced part, setup and image has a defined source or an explicit pending status.
• Proposed synthetic transition cases distinguish record confirmation from physical verification.
• Future complexity targets remain unachieved until separately evidenced; counts alone establish neither usefulness nor manufacturing readiness.

4. Data

Entities

Evidence used as data

5. Architecture

Proposed architecture: a read-only contract and mechanical crosswalk feed a versioned setup manifest. A local browser record compares selected references with the latest IndexedDB record inside a transaction before a staff-requested transition. There is no connection to machinery. Geometry below summarizes selected supplied parts only; mechanicalDesign remains authoritative. Materials, masses and unspecified envelopes are intentionally not invented.

Components

Interfaces

Deployment: Future local-only browser demonstration in one browser/profile. This package deploys nothing. Browser clearing can erase records; downloaded exports are not authoritative live records.

6. Modules

7. Build waves

Wave 1 · Wave 1 — Mechanical reference baseline (sequential)

Review M1 then M2, publish the shared manifest and preserve all unresolved mechanical questions without CAD generation.

Modules: m1, m2

Wave 2 · Wave 2 — Record and handoff specification (sequential)

Specify M3 against the reviewed reference baseline and prepare proposed synthetic checks, without implementation.

Modules: m3

8. PRDs

m1

M1-S1 · Review assembly interfaces against the locked contract

• Register SA01–SA05 using P01–P12 and P23; retain unknown quantities and attachment definitions.
• Distinguish supplied coordinates, analytic interface questions and future measured evidence; preserve the full contract.

M1-S2 · Review declared manual positioning and clearance questions

• List missing Y endpoints, X 300 mm and Z 30 mm endpoint definitions, moving/fixed assignments and motion-protection questions.
• Request later endpoint and section checks; do not authorize movement or claim a usable stroke.

m2

M2-S1 · Review fixture/grid and optics references

• Define FX-DECK-GRID-r1 solely as P16's supplied grid reference, not a workholding device.
• Record conditional camera/backplate and ring/backplate intersections and unresolved optics attachment; change no dimensions.

M2-S2 · Review enclosure, cable and service interfaces

• Identify P18–P23, eight vent features and twelve carrier links without counting vents as parts.
• Register unknown panel placement, lid access, carrier route, cable clearances, mounting and electrical integration for later review.

m3

M3-S1 · Specify staff setup-reference confirmation

• Use synthetic records and the shared crosswalk; compare selected references and the latest stored record revision.
• Stale views, missing listed references and mismatches block record confirmation only; staff reconcile and repeat checks.

M3-S2 · Specify staff handoff and receipt

• Offer the declared setup, current record revision, limitations and optional resolved synthetic image references to receiving service staff.
• Require explicit receiving-role acknowledgement; changed setup or references revoke current confirmation and require renewed review.

9. Bill of materials

10. Geometry

Each part below gets parametric source, STEP/STL exports and dimensioned drawings in cad/<part>/ once its geometry is generated; the runner checks the measured envelope and mass against these values.

Design system

• Show contract and manifest references beside every declared setup.
• Separate reference blockers from acknowledged engineering limitations.
• Use text labels as well as color for every state.
• Label confirmation as record-only and acknowledgement as receipt-only.

Tone: Plain, cautious and specific; never present a record state as permission to operate. · Colors: #172033 text, #FFFFFF background, #92400E review warning, #B91C1C reference blocker, #1D4ED8 record action · Typography: System sans-serif for prose; monospace for IDs and revisions.

Agent concurrency

Up to 1 builder(s) in parallel.

Shared files (serialize edits)

• mechanicalDesign.json
• mechanical-crosswalk.json
• setup-manifest.json
• record-contract.md
• review-register.md

Rules

• One builder works sequentially through M1, M2 and M3.
• These are proposed artifact names; no files are claimed to exist.
• Never edit the supplied mechanicalDesign payload.
• Only the mechanical-review role changes the proposed crosswalk; dependent manifest changes require record review.
• Stop at review specifications and proposed checks; CAD, source generation and measured validation are later operations.
• Use only the three supplied investigation nodes.

Controls and tests

Dependencies

Risks

Open questions

• What are the Y carriage, saddle, tower and side-panel quantities and placements? P03–P05 and P19 remain outside the quantified BOM.
• What defines Y, X and Z endpoints, moving/fixed assignments, screw lengths and drive connections?
• How do the X rail/carriage and focus backplate/carriage attach without altering locked coordinates?
• What mounting interpretation resolves the conditional camera/backplate and ring/backplate intersections?
• What workholding hardware, deck-hole origins, attachment details, materials, tolerances and masses are intended?
• What loads, stiffness, stability, motion protection and manual-adjustment provisions require later engineering review?
• How are the controller lid, feet, side panels and carrier endpoints mounted, and what service clearances are needed?
• What electrical interfaces, wiring, cable bend limits and component selections would a later unenergized integration review require?

Evidence

• workstation-question One setup, one inspection handoff
• workstation-dimensions Locked workstation geometry
• workstation-concept Mechanical interfaces meet the staff record

Recorded investigation basis

Frozen scope: my canvas revision 1

No linked decision is inferred; review the retained records before treating this draft as a commitment.

Selected concept

No selected named concept was present in the frozen package scope.

Human decision records

No selected human concept decision record.

Exact selected material

• workstation-question One setup, one inspection handoff (content 1)
• workstation-dimensions Locked workstation geometry (content 1)
• workstation-concept Mechanical interfaces meet the staff record (content 1)

Frozen specification

Export state: Needs review · Specification revision: 1

Specification digest: 5ecf6b810ad05d603a2d2f98308022779915a9b0f497c13ddfe7b3b8b50293ff

No human approval for handoff is recorded for this exact specification revision. Downloading or copying this export does not approve it.

R1 · revision 1 · Needs review

Preserve the supplied mechanical contract and the bounded investigation scope.

Acceptance

• Return the complete supplied mechanicalDesign unchanged, including schema, product, coordinate system, all parameters, array order and all three limitations. Its values are supplied proposed constraints, not measurements or compiled CAD. Dimensional summaries never override it.
• Use exactly workstation-question, workstation-dimensions and workstation-concept, each at contentRevision 1. Retain their human-origin, unassessed status; add no investigation nodes or evidence sources.
• Keep exactly M1, M2 and M3, two stories each, two sequential waves and one builder. This draft generates no CAD, application source, physical-test results or deployed system.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-question, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-dimensions, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-concept, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• The supplied contract is the intended input for the separate deterministic builder.

Unresolved

• No CAD compilation, geometry measurements or prototype validation exist in this review.

R2 · revision 1 · Needs review

Use one proposed mechanical crosswalk and an honest partial BOM.

Acceptance

• Adopt P01–P23 and SA01–SA10 exactly as listed in MechanicalCrosswalk. Mechanical reviewer owns identifiers; M3 reuses them. C-LOCKED-1 identifies the unchanged supplied payload, and M-SETUP-r1 is a proposed manifest revision, not a revised mechanical contract.
• Quantify only explicitly supported counts or singular named elements. P03–P05 and P19 quantities remain unknown. Do not add mounts, fasteners, fixtures, motors, bearings or connectors without supplied definitions. Eight vents are features, not parts; twelve links are repeated instances, not twelve distinct designs.
• FX-DECK-GRID-r1 refers only to P16's grid. It does not establish a physical workholding fixture. Geometry entries are a permitted summary of supplied envelopes, not a complete drawing release. Unspecified materials, masses, lengths, placements and fits remain unknown; omitted massG is not zero.
• Request later assembly, exploded and section views plus actual counts and bounds. The 60–100 placed-component, at least 25 distinct non-fastener-design and at least 8 functional-subassembly targets are unchecked. More parts do not demonstrate usefulness or manufacturing readiness.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-dimensions, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Singular named contract elements support the provisional quantities shown.
• The proposed identifiers are suitable for later builder reconciliation.

Unresolved

• Unknown quantities, manufacturing partition, complete envelopes, materials, masses and vendor selections.

R3 · revision 1 · Needs review

Record mechanical conflicts without changing geometry or asserting validation.

Acceptance

• If the camera body is centered on X270/Y110, its nominal Y94–126 and Z190–230 envelope overlaps the unrelieved backplate at Y124–132 and Z164–344. A centered ring reaches Y134 and spans Z158–168, allowing a conditional backplate intersection. These are supplied-coordinate deductions, not measured collisions; placement, relief and attachments remain unresolved.
• X carriage Y140–164 meets the rail front at Y164 without defining engagement. Backplate Y124–132 and carriage Y140–164 leave an analytic 8 mm separation without an attachment definition. X screw center Z357 is above carriage top Z351 without a drive connection. Do not invent brackets, reliefs or coordinate changes.
• Treat X 300 mm and Z 30 mm as nominal travel proposals, not demonstrated strokes. Y endpoints, motion sweeps, mounting faces, cable route, service access, foot Z placement and moving/fixed assignments need explicit definitions before later geometry checks.
• Manual adjustment is an untested workflow assumption, not a movement instruction. Fits, loads, stiffness, stability, motion protection, optical performance, electrical integration and prototype validation remain open. No powered or energized operation, machine-control implementation, safety approval or compliance claim is in scope.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-dimensions, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• The reported optics intersections assume axis-centered, unrelieved nominal solids.
• Staff may describe a manual setup without the record proving its physical state.

Unresolved

• All cited attachments, conditional intersections, motion definitions and engineering validation.

R4 · revision 1 · Needs review

Specify minimal local synthetic storage and record-only confirmation gates.

Acceptance

• Propose TypeScript, semantic HTML and IndexedDB for a later local demonstration. Store only synthetic inspection IDs, reference IDs, declared setup, controlled check/discrepancy codes, revisions, role labels and state. Exclude names, customer data, real images, cloud, external uploads, authentication claims, instrument links and machine control.
• Before any confirmation or handoff transition, compare the selected manifest, contract, setup and fixture references with the current local manifest selection and latest stored record revision. A proposed IndexedDB readwrite transaction checks the expected revision and saves the next revision atomically; stale requests reject without overwriting newer records. Selected manifest changes require review rather than automatic reference substitution.
• Missing listed references, mismatches, incomplete required checks and unresolved reference discrepancies block confirmation only. Staff reviewer reconciles them; setup operator repeats checks. Known engineering limitations may remain as explicitly acknowledged flags and do not imply physical approval. Matching references cannot verify the workstation.
• Browser-local data belongs to one browser/profile and may be erased. Explicit JSON export includes schema, contract, manifest and record revisions and is a point-in-time copy, never the live latest record. Import and synchronization are out of scope.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-concept, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-question, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• A single browser/profile is sufficient for the teaching demonstration.
• Role labels express staff responsibility, not authenticated identity.

Unresolved

• Browser behavior, persistence and race handling require later implementation review and proposed tests.

R5 · revision 1 · Needs review

Define staff-controlled inspection and handoff transitions.

Acceptance

• Transition table: draft → ready, setup operator, requires defined references and completed checks, rejects missing references or incomplete checks. ready → confirmed, setup operator, requires latest-revision comparison and matching references, rejects stale views, mismatches or unresolved reference discrepancies. confirmed → review-required, setup operator declares adjustment or fixture change; retaining current confirmation is prohibited.
• review-required → ready: staff reviewer reconciles references and records disposition of discrepancies; setup operator repeats checks. Reject unresolved reference mismatches. Selected-manifest changes likewise require review. Every accepted change increments recordRevision; previous confirmation and receipt are historical, not current.
• With inspectionState confirmed, handoffStatus none → offered: setup operator supplies the declared setup, current references, record revision, engineering limitations and any resolved image references. Reject an incomplete package. offered → acknowledged: receiving service staff reviews those items and explicitly acknowledges receipt and limitations; reject missing references or unacknowledged limitations.
• A declared setup, fixture or manifest change after offering or acknowledgement sets inspectionState to review-required and current handoffStatus to none. Staff must reconcile, repeat checks, reconfirm and reoffer. Record blocking, invalidation, export and receipt never trigger movement, shutdown or any other physical action.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-concept, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-question, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Staff declare changes; the demonstration cannot detect physical adjustments.
• A reviewer and receiving role can acknowledge limitations without approving operation.

Unresolved

• Human procedure usability and responsibility assignment need later review.

R6 · revision 1 · Needs review

Keep pending image references and proposed checks distinct from evidence.

Acceptance

• IMG-ASM, IMG-EXP and IMG-SEC are pending catalogue entries owned by the future separate geometry builder, not produced images. Record imageRefs may be empty. A pending catalogue entry does not itself block a record; listing it in that record without an available synthetic source does block confirmation until staff resolve or remove it through a revision.
• Future synthetic cases cover matching references, changed fixture, changed manifest, stale view, missing listed image, competing record revisions, incomplete handoff and change after acknowledgement. Specify expected record outcomes only; do not claim execution or passing tests.
• Only the three supplied revision-1 nodes are cited as evidence. Future CAD views, count reports, source outputs and prototype observations are requests, not current evidence. Separate future geometry checks must report their methodology and unresolved definitions rather than silently repairing the locked input.

Decision records

No exact human decision record.

Evidence versions

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-concept, contentRevision=1
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-dimensions, contentRevision=1

Assumptions

• Optional synthetic image references can be omitted until an identified source exists.

Unresolved

• All image outputs, geometry reports and check results remain pending.

Exact reference availability

• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-question, contentRevision=1 — current
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-dimensions, contentRevision=1 — current
• canvas=my, nodeId=workstation-concept, contentRevision=1 — current

Honest unresolved context

Contradictions, risks and missing evidence

• Conditional camera-body and ring-light intersections with the unrelieved backplate. — Preserve geometry and flag conditional envelope conflicts; request explicit mounting interpretation and later sections.
• Undefined engagement, drive connections, endpoints and attachment faces undermine motion conclusions. — Do not infer usable travel from rail lengths or nominal travel; require separately reviewed definitions.
• A confirmed record or acknowledged handoff is mistaken for physical approval. — Use record-only labels and retain engineering limitations in the record and handoff.
• Local persistence is cleared, or a downloaded copy is mistaken for the latest record. — Explain browser/profile limits, include revisions in exports and provide no import or cloud-sync path in this scope.
• Complexity targets encourage unsupported parts or inflated design counts. — Count only later evidenced geometry; do not treat identifiers, vent features or repeated instances as distinct designs.
• The controller, panels and carrier appear integrated despite undefined wiring, access and protection. — Keep electrical integration, loads, routing, guarding and prototype validation explicitly unresolved.

Risks accepted for this exact handoff

None. This revision has no handoff approval.

Unanswered questions

• What are the Y carriage, saddle, tower and side-panel quantities and placements? P03–P05 and P19 remain outside the quantified BOM.
• What defines Y, X and Z endpoints, moving/fixed assignments, screw lengths and drive connections?
• How do the X rail/carriage and focus backplate/carriage attach without altering locked coordinates?
• What mounting interpretation resolves the conditional camera/backplate and ring/backplate intersections?
• What workholding hardware, deck-hole origins, attachment details, materials, tolerances and masses are intended?
• What loads, stiffness, stability, motion protection and manual-adjustment provisions require later engineering review?
• How are the controller lid, feet, side panels and carrier endpoints mounted, and what service clearances are needed?
• What electrical interfaces, wiring, cable bend limits and component selections would a later unenergized integration review require?
• No CAD compilation, geometry measurements or prototype validation exist in this review.
• Unknown quantities, manufacturing partition, complete envelopes, materials, masses and vendor selections.
• All cited attachments, conditional intersections, motion definitions and engineering validation.
• Browser behavior, persistence and race handling require later implementation review and proposed tests.
• Human procedure usability and responsibility assignment need later review.
• All image outputs, geometry reports and check results remain pending.

Assumptions

• The supplied contract is the intended input for the separate deterministic builder.
• Singular named contract elements support the provisional quantities shown.
• The proposed identifiers are suitable for later builder reconciliation.
• The reported optics intersections assume axis-centered, unrelieved nominal solids.
• Staff may describe a manual setup without the record proving its physical state.
• A single browser/profile is sufficient for the teaching demonstration.
• Role labels express staff responsibility, not authenticated identity.
• Staff declare changes; the demonstration cannot detect physical adjustments.
• A reviewer and receiving role can acknowledge limitations without approving operation.
• Optional synthetic image references can be omitted until an identified source exists.

Requirements without an exact decision record

• R1
• R2
• R3
• R4
• R5
• R6

Pending claims / requirements awaiting human review

• R1
• R2
• R3
• R4
• R5
• R6

Some retained historical material is unavailable. Its frozen identifiers remain visible, but this export does not restore or disclose the unavailable private content.

PRD · Base and motion structure

Review SA01–SA05: base/feet, Y guidance, gantry, X guidance/screw and Z focus guidance/screw.

M1-S1 · Review assembly interfaces against the locked contract

Acceptance:

• Register SA01–SA05 using P01–P12 and P23; retain unknown quantities and attachment definitions.
• Distinguish supplied coordinates, analytic interface questions and future measured evidence; preserve the full contract.

M1-S2 · Review declared manual positioning and clearance questions

Acceptance:

• List missing Y endpoints, X 300 mm and Z 30 mm endpoint definitions, moving/fixed assignments and motion-protection questions.
• Request later endpoint and section checks; do not authorize movement or claim a usable stroke.

PRD · Workholding/optics/enclosure interfaces

Review SA06–SA10: optics, deck/workholding, enclosure, controller housing and cable carrier. Depends on: m1

M2-S1 · Review fixture/grid and optics references

Acceptance:

• Define FX-DECK-GRID-r1 solely as P16's supplied grid reference, not a workholding device.
• Record conditional camera/backplate and ring/backplate intersections and unresolved optics attachment; change no dimensions.

M2-S2 · Review enclosure, cable and service interfaces

Acceptance:

• Identify P18–P23, eight vent features and twelve carrier links without counting vents as parts.
• Register unknown panel placement, lid access, carrier route, cable clearances, mounting and electrical integration for later review.

PRD · Local staff inspection record and service handoff

Specify synthetic local metadata, reference checks, explicit staff transitions and receiving-role acknowledgement. Depends on: m1, m2

M3-S1 · Specify staff setup-reference confirmation

Acceptance:

• Use synthetic records and the shared crosswalk; compare selected references and the latest stored record revision.
• Stale views, missing listed references and mismatches block record confirmation only; staff reconcile and repeat checks.

M3-S2 · Specify staff handoff and receipt

Acceptance:

• Offer the declared setup, current record revision, limitations and optional resolved synthetic image references to receiving service staff.
• Require explicit receiving-role acknowledgement; changed setup or references revoke current confirmation and require renewed review.

AGENTS.md

You are building Benchtop XYZ inspection workstation — LIGHT (hybrid). Read PACKAGE.md first; it is the complete product definition. Do not widen the scope beyond it.

Frozen specification revision 1 · Needs review. Downloading this archive did not approve it. Resolve every item marked unresolved or awaiting review instead of treating it as verified.

Order of work

1. Wave 1 — Mechanical reference baseline (sequential): prd/m1.md, prd/m2.md — Review M1 then M2, publish the shared manifest and preserve all unresolved mechanical questions without CAD generation.
2. Wave 2 — Record and handoff specification (sequential): prd/m3.md — Specify M3 against the reviewed reference baseline and prepare proposed synthetic checks, without implementation.

Concurrency

At most 1 builder(s) at once. Serialize edits to: mechanicalDesign.json, mechanical-crosswalk.json, setup-manifest.json, record-contract.md, review-register.md.

• One builder works sequentially through M1, M2 and M3.
• These are proposed artifact names; no files are claimed to exist.
• Never edit the supplied mechanicalDesign payload.
• Only the mechanical-review role changes the proposed crosswalk; dependent manifest changes require record review.
• Stop at review specifications and proposed checks; CAD, source generation and measured validation are later operations.
• Use only the three supplied investigation nodes.

Definition of done

• Contract preservation: Proposed check: all values, array order, units, origin and limitations match the supplied JSON. (Later recursive JSON comparison against the supplied payload; report every difference.)
• Mechanical interfaces: Proposed check: document conditional optics overlaps, X attachment questions and undefined motion endpoints. (Review supplied-coordinate arithmetic now; request later identified sections and endpoint checks.)
• Geometry evidence: Future targets: 60–100 placed components, at least 25 distinct non-fastener designs and at least 8 subassemblies. (Separate builder reports actual counts, bounds, assembly, exploded and section views; no result asserted.)
• Reference confirmation: Proposed cases: matching references, changed fixture, changed manifest, stale view and missing listed image. (Specify synthetic inputs and expected record-only outcomes; do not report execution or passing results.)
• Revision integrity: Proposed case: two views request transitions from the same record revision; the stale request is rejected. (Later exercise transactional latest-revision comparison with two synthetic browser views.)
• Handoff and adjustment: Proposed cases: incomplete offer, unacknowledged limitations and a setup change after acknowledgement. (Walk the role/state table; expect blocked receipt or renewed review, never physical action.)
• Local-only scope: Proposed review: metadata only, no network uploads, device APIs, real images or identity claims. (Review future schema, browser API use and export fields against the exclusions.)
• Prototype evidence boundary: Loads, fits, protection, electrical integration and prototype validation remain unresolved. (Maintain an open review register; do not substitute counts, renderings or record states for validation.)

CAD

If generated artifacts are present, cad/<part>/ holds their parametric source and exported views. The dimensions and mass in PACKAGE.md are design requirements, not measurements or proof of manufacture. Inspect each generated result and its checks before use.

Every story in prd/ must meet its acceptance criteria before the wave is complete. Ask a human when an open question in PACKAGE.md blocks a decision; do not guess.

Benchtop XYZ inspection workstation

Actual worker outputs; supplied dimensions are design constraints, not measurements.

Mechanical integration, clearances and BOM interfaces — worker-a; bounded to workstation-dimensions and the mechanical contribution to workstation-question · focused review

• Investigation references are exactly workstation-question, workstation-dimensions and workstation-concept, each at contentRevision 1. Their supplied origins are human and their evidence statuses are unassessed. The mechanical contract is supplied design data, not measured geometry; workstation-concept is a candidate interface idea.
• Coordinate basis: mm; X width, Y depth, Z up; origin at the base lower-front-left. The base occupies nominal X0–540, Y0–420, Z0–12. The deck minimum [140,50,56] and size [260,200,8] put its nominal underside at Z56. A standoff of supplied height 44 would span the difference from the base top at Z12, but its mounting and deck attachment are unspecified.
• The Y rail centres are X70 and X470, with rails running Y30–390. The bridge minimum [50,180,310] and size [440,60,30] place its nominal X extent across both rail centres and its Y midpoint at the supplied gantry centre Y210. Rail-to-carriage, carriage-to-saddle, saddle-to-tower and tower-to-bridge attachments remain undefined; carriage spacing does not define motion endpoints.
• The X rail runs nominally X65–475 at front Y164 and minimum Z318. Its proposed travel is 300 mm, not a defined endpoint pair or demonstrated stroke. The X carriage, X screw and focus backplate need specified attachment faces and moving-versus-fixed assignments. The Z rods have supplied length 120 mm; the proposed 30 mm focus travel likewise has no endpoint definition.
• Functional subassemblies, not additional LIGHT modules: SA01 base/feet; SA02 Y guidance/carriages; SA03 gantry; SA04 X guidance/carriage/screw; SA05 Z guidance/screw; SA06 optics envelopes; SA07 deck/workholding; SA08 enclosure; SA09 controller housing; SA10 cable carrier. Proposed stable part-ID crosswalk: P01 base; P02 Y rail; P03 Y carriage; P04 Y saddle; P05 gantry tower; P06 bridge; P07 X rail; P08 X carriage; P09 X screw; P10 focus backplate; P11 focus rod; P12 focus screw; P13 camera-body envelope; P14 lens envelope; P15 ring-light envelope; P16 deck; P17 standoff; P18 rear panel; P19 side panel; P20 controller housing; P21 controller lid; P22 carrier link; P23 foot. These are identifiers for supplied elements, not a claim that every element is a separately manufactured component.
• Provisional BOM quantities supported by explicit counts or singular named elements: P01 1, P02 2, P06 1, P07 1, P08 1, P09 1, P10 1, P11 2, P12 1, P13–P16 1 each, P17 4, P18 1, P20 1, P21 1, P22 12 and P23 4. P03–P05 and P19 quantities remain unresolved; count no vent as a separate part merely because ventCount is 8. Mounts, fasteners, workholding fixtures, motors, bearings and connectors have no supplied BOM specification or supported quantity. Purchased-component shapes are nominal envelopes, not vendor-qualified selections.
• Exactly three named LIGHT modules, with exactly two proposed acceptance-question slots each: base and motion structure — (1) assembly/interface review: are the named rail, carriage, gantry, X and Z interfaces identified? (2) manual positioning/clearance review: are declared positions and unresolved endpoints distinguishable from checked clearances?; workholding/optics/enclosure interfaces — (1) fixture/optics setup review: do deck reference and optics envelope agree with the declared setup? (2) enclosure/cable/service access review: are panel, controller and carrier access questions recorded?; local staff inspection record and service handoff — (1) record/setup-reference review: do references match the staff-declared setup? (2) handoff reconciliation review: can staff identify and resolve stale or incomplete records? These are slots and questions, not full stories or evidence.
• Proposed worker-b setup-reference manifest M-SETUP-r1: contract identity tce-cookbook-mechanical-design-v1 / inspection-workstation, locked parameters unchanged; the three node IDs at revision 1; SA01–SA10 and P01–P23 crosswalk above; fixture reference FX-DECK-GRID-r1, meaning a proposed reference to P16's supplied grid rather than an added fixture; synthetic inspection ID; explicitly staff-declared manual X, gantry-Y and focus-Z setup state without inferred coordinates; and flags for unresolved endpoints, mounting, optics overlap, enclosure access and carrier route. Worker-b owns the record fields and synthetic inspection-ID assignment; staff declare physical setup changes, reconcile mismatches and acknowledge handoff. M-SETUP-r1 is a proposed manifest revision, not a revision of the locked contract.
• Proposed later evidence requests to the separate geometry builder: identified assembly, exploded and relevant section views; source-linked image references IMG-ASM, IMG-EXP and IMG-SEC with builder as future owner and all three marked pending; actual placed-part counts, distinct non-fastener-design counts, functional-subassembly counts and model bounds; and measured interference/clearance reports at defined motion endpoints. The targets of 60–100 placed components, at least 25 distinct non-fastener designs and at least 8 functional subassemblies remain unchecked targets, not reasons to add BOM items.

Recommendations

• Ask the later builder to define endpoint and moving-part assumptions before checking Y carriage/gantry, X carriage/screw and Z guide/screw sweeps. Review the X rail-to-carriage face, screw-to-carriage drive interface, focus mounting and camera-to-focus connection separately from any measured clearance result.
• Request sections and access views for deck holes and standoffs, fixture reach, optics-to-backplate spacing, controller lid and eight vent features, rear/side panels, twelve-link carrier routing from its supplied start, and cable/service access. Record analytic questions now; reserve pass/fail and distances for later geometry evidence.
• Use synthetic record-transition cases only: matching manifest and fixture references may permit staff confirmation; a changed fixture, changed manifest, stale browser view or missing image reference should block confirmation pending reconciliation; incomplete handoff should remain unacknowledged. These are expected record outcomes, not executed tests. Neither confirmation, export nor acknowledgement verifies physical setup or permits energized operation.

Concerns

• Potential explicit geometry conflict: if P13's 32 × 32 body is centred on the supplied optics axis X270/Y110, its Y extent is 94–126 and Z extent is 190–230. The unrelieved P10 backplate spans Y124–132 and Z164–344, so their nominal solid envelopes overlap. Camera-body placement and the intended mounting relief are unresolved; do not silently move either.
• Potential explicit geometry conflict: if P15's ring is centred on that same axis, its outside diameter reaches Y134 and its Z span is 158–168. The backplate begins at Y124 and Z164, so portions of a nominal unrelieved ring and plate can intersect. Ring attachment, centring and relief require a defined interface and later section check.
• Y carriage count and locations, X and Z travel endpoints, gantry tower footprints, side-panel placement, controller mounting, carrier path/end connection, cable bend and service clearances, and foot Z placement are absent. The supplied dimensions do not resolve them. The controller nominally spans X360–515, Y286–386, Z12–70; the rear panel starts at Y400, but that separation alone establishes no service access.
• The record-to-image crosswalk has no produced image source yet: IMG-ASM, IMG-EXP and IMG-SEC are pending builder references, not existing files. FX-DECK-GRID-r1 is a proposed setup reference, not a supplied workholding part. Missing references must remain flagged rather than treated as verified.

Staff web inspection log, human service handoff and workstation interfaces · focused review

• Exactly three investigation nodes are in scope: workstation-question, workstation-dimensions and workstation-concept, each at content revision 1. Their supplied provenance is retained; their evidence status is unassessed. The dimensions node contains supplied design constraints, not measurements.
• The LIGHT outline has exactly three modules, each with two story slots: (1) base and motion structure—base/Y-motion reference; gantry/X/Z-motion reference. (2) workholding/optics/enclosure interfaces—deck/fixture and optics reference; enclosure/controller and cable-routing reference. (3) local staff inspection record and service handoff—staff setup-reference confirmation; staff service handoff/review. Functional subassemblies are not additional modules.
• The staff module needs one identifier crosswalk, owned by the mechanical integration record: its part IDs, subassembly names and BOM entries map to fixture/setup references and the selected manifest revision. The inspection record cites that crosswalk and the locked contract revision; optional synthetic image-reference IDs require a defined local source and owner. No worker-a identifier list was supplied here, so no parallel part IDs or fixture names are assigned.
• Proposed minimal synthetic record: inspection ID; setup reference; fixture reference; contract revision; selected manifest revision; optional synthetic image-reference IDs; explicit staff-check entries with outcome and discrepancy text; record revision; inspection state; handoff status. No names or customer fields.
• The locked contract uses mm and X width, Y depth, Z up, with the base lower-front-left as origin. Interface questions remain explicit: the specified X carriage ends at Y164 while the X rail begins at Y164, so engagement is not established by those envelopes; the focus backplate ends at Y132 while the X carriage begins at Y140, leaving an attachment interface unspecified. Neither observation is a measured clearance or a change to either parameter.

Recommendations

• Use browser-local metadata storage and an explicit JSON export of synthetic records. Do not use cloud storage, external uploads, real images, authentication, instrument links or machine control. Browser-local data is limited to that browser/profile and may be cleared; an exported file is a separate copy that can become stale and must not be treated as the latest stored revision.
• Before setup confirmation, staff must compare the currently selected setup manifest and contract references with the latest locally stored record revision and its fixture/setup references. A stale view, missing referenced item or mismatch blocks record confirmation only. The setup operator declares manual adjustments or fixture changes; a staff reviewer reconciles discrepancies against the selected manifest; the setup operator repeats checks and confirms a renewed record revision. Matching references do not verify the actual workstation.
• Proposed transition table, not implemented: Draft → Ready for confirmation: setup operator; requires selected manifest, defined references and completed explicit checks; reject missing references or incomplete checks. Ready → Confirmed: setup operator; requires comparison with latest stored revision and matching selected manifest, contract, fixture and setup references; reject stale view, changed manifest/fixture or unresolved discrepancy. Confirmed → Review required: setup operator declares a manual adjustment or fixture change; reject retaining the prior confirmation as current. Review required → Ready: staff reviewer reconciles references and open discrepancies, then setup operator repeats checks; reject unresolved mismatch. Confirmed → Handoff offered: setup operator; requires a declared setup, open-discrepancy list and referenced record/image IDs; reject incomplete handoff. Handoff offered → Acknowledged: receiving service staff; requires review of those references and explicit acknowledgement; reject missing references or unacknowledged discrepancies. Acknowledgement is receipt, not physical verification.
• Propose synthetic transition cases for later review: matching references permit record confirmation; changed fixture, changed manifest and stale browser view block it pending staff reconciliation; a missing listed image reference blocks confirmation until the reference is resolved or removed by staff revision; an incomplete handoff blocks acknowledgement. These are expected record outcomes, not executed tests or physical protection.
• Request separate analytic interface review and later measured geometry checks for motion endpoints, carriage/gantry and focus/optics interfaces, deck/workholding access, enclosure/controller access and cable-carrier routing. The separate CAD builder must check the future targets of 60–100 placed components, at least 25 different non-fastener designs and at least 8 functional subassemblies without BOM padding.

Concerns

• The worker-a identifier registry and ownership assignments are not supplied in this material. Part-to-BOM, subassembly-to-fixture, manifest-to-contract and image-to-record references must remain unresolved until that shared crosswalk is available.
• The specified X rail/carriage and focus backplate/carriage Y relationships do not establish their mechanical attachments. Do not resolve them by moving locked geometry or inventing brackets. Other nominal envelopes likewise provide no measured motion clearance, optics performance or access result.
• A log state, matching reference, JSON export or receiving-role acknowledgement does not establish physical setup, permission for energized operation or tested protection. No browser software, physical test, deployed workflow or CAD validation is claimed.

Final integration

Integrated the two actual reviews into one bounded LIGHT package. The supplied mechanicalDesign is retained unchanged as a proposed parameter contract, not compiled CAD. No check, geometry result, physical test or application implementation is claimed.

Orchestrator review

Actual model decisions for a light draft. No human approval or executed product test is implied.

Integrated the two actual reviews into one bounded LIGHT package. The supplied mechanicalDesign is retained unchanged as a proposed parameter contract, not compiled CAD. No check, geometry result, physical test or application implementation is claimed.

Accepted

• Worker-a's P01–P23 and SA01–SA10 crosswalk, conservative BOM quantities and separation of subassemblies from modules.
• Worker-a's conditional optics conflicts, undefined motion/interface questions and requests for later assembly, exploded, section, count and bounds evidence.
• Worker-b's local-only metadata, explicit JSON export, latest-revision comparison and staff-owned transitions.
• Both workers' prohibition on interpreting a matching record, export or acknowledgement as physical verification or permission to operate.
• Both workers' requirement that complexity targets remain future checks rather than achieved results.

Changed

• Resolved worker-b's unavailable-crosswalk concern using the actual worker-a identifiers supplied here; no parallel vocabulary was introduced.
• Selected worker-a's assembly/interface and positioning/clearance story split for M1, rather than worker-b's alternate grouping by motion axes.
• Made the storage proposal specific: IndexedDB metadata with transactional revision checks, explicit JSON download and no import in this scope.
• Separated inspectionState from handoffStatus and invalidated current receipt after a declared setup, fixture or manifest change.
• Narrowed the missing-image blocker: optional pending catalogue entries do not block; unresolved images actually listed in a record do.
• Separated reference discrepancies, which block confirmation, from declared engineering limitations, which remain visible and require acknowledgement. This permits a synthetic record demonstration without implying mechanical approval.
• Future builder must document missing endpoint and moving-part definitions and return them for review, rather than silently choosing geometry.

Rejected

• Blanket blocking of every record merely because optional future geometry images have not yet been produced.
• Any interpretation of nominal envelopes or analytic gaps as proven fit, clearance, usable motion or service access.
• Any implied authority to repair conflicts through shifted geometry, invented brackets, reliefs or BOM padding.
• Treating part counts, renderings, record confirmation or handoff receipt as evidence of usefulness, manufacturing readiness or operational protection.

Unresolved

• Camera/backplate and ring/backplate conflicts remain conditional on centered, unrelieved nominal envelopes; no geometry was changed.
• Rail engagement, backplate attachment, screw connections, endpoints, Y quantities and placements, panel placement and carrier routing remain undefined.
• Fits, materials, masses, loads, stability, motion protection, electrical integration and prototype validation remain open.
• Workholding hardware is unspecified; FX-DECK-GRID-r1 is only a proposed reference to the deck grid.
• Geometry summary massG values are schema placeholders only, not engineering data; actual masses remain unknown and must not be consumed as zero-mass estimates.
• All future images, geometry evidence and synthetic workflow checks remain pending.

Next action

Have one reviewer execute Wave 1's document review, confirm the crosswalk and record unresolved interfaces without changing the contract; then specify Wave 2's record transitions. Separately authorize CAD/source generation and validation only after missing definitions receive explicit review.

Export timing

The runner exported these planning files after the model response. Later CAD compilation, measured geometry and rendering are separate operations with their own evidence. They are not physical testing.

Benchtop inspection workstation

This is actual parametric CAD compiled from a supplied, provider-reviewed mechanical contract. The API models reviewed the contract and plan. Codex authored the separate Python CAD implementation; no claim is made that the models emitted this source.

The assembly contains 85 meaningful component instances and 8 explicitly counted fastener envelopes, representing 47 distinct designs and 10 functional subassemblies. Counts come from the same inventory exported to STEP, GLB and BOM.

• Open assembly.step for named, colored BRep solids and native CAD hierarchy. STEP uses millimetres and Z up.
• Open assembly.glb for the assembled model or exploded.glb for the presentation exploded view. GLB uses metres and Y up; named leaf nodes have identity transforms. Geometry is mapped from CAD (x,y,z) mm to (x,z,-y)/1000 metres.
• parts.json records each node name, design ID, functional group and explosion offset in original CAD XYZ millimetres.
• BOM.csv identifies every instance; parts/ contains its individual STL in global CAD millimetres. STL has no intrinsic unit metadata.
• assembled, exploded and engineering-drawing SVG/PNG files render the actual mesh. detail-sheets/ provides readable subassembly views.
• mechanical-design.json is the actual saved contract; source.py is its editable parametric implementation.
• cad-manifest.json records BRep validity, native STEP round-trip, exact selected clearance/interference checks and file hashes.

Validation covers the static shown pose. Digital checks are not a motion study, tolerance stack, physical prototype, structural assessment or certification. Motors, bearings, optics and connectors are nominal envelopes. Screw threads and internal bearing mechanisms are simplified. Exploded offsets are presentation transforms, not a verified assembly path.

Reproduce from the repository: node scripts/cookbook-mechanical-render.mjs --only=inspection-workstation. It uses the existing offline ce-spec-native:spec-final-2 Docker image with build123d 0.11.1, Python 3 with NumPy/Pillow, and sharp. The container sees only an isolated scratch directory and has no network access. There are no API calls or commissioned specification jobs.

Builder implementation decisions — not model approvals

• Builder-authored focus-backplate relief: removed X244..296, Y123..133, Z163..235 mm from the locked plate envelope to clear the centered camera and ring light. The original outer plate dimensions and optical axis are unchanged. This relief was not approved by the model review.
• Builder-authored integral mounting bosses bridge the 8 mm gap from focus backplate to X carriage at X239..253 and X287..301, Y132..140, Z310..330 mm. Joint fastening and strength are unresolved.
• Builder-authored radius9.2 mm seat in the X carriage gives the nominal radius9 mm lead nut clearance; retention and screw alignment are unvalidated.
• Builder-authored camera bracket ends at Y124 mm and its neck at Z246 mm, meeting the backplate/carriage without positive-volume overlap. Guide-rod and screw passages are cut through its shelf. The lower guide block has a radius13 mm lens aperture, and the illuminator bracket a radius4.2 mm guide passage. These clearances do not establish fastening, stiffness or retention.
• Builder-authored clamp slots and diameter4.6 mm screw envelopes align to existing grid holes at (210,120) and (310,120); clamp faces touch the coupon at Z66 mm. Threads, axial retention and clamping force are undefined.
• Detailed holes, hollow sections, nominal motor/connector shapes, cable links and workholding hardware implement the concept for inspection; they do not represent qualified commercial parts.

Remaining engineering conflicts

• KNOWN STATIC INTERFERENCE: the reviewed focus-screw axis passes through the reviewed camera envelope (W23/W26). The exact positive overlap is recorded as a failed digital check; the reviewed placements are deliberately retained. A revised mechanical layout and model review are required to resolve this.
• No validated fastener/retention scheme for the focus bosses, X nut, optics, rails or cable carrier.
• No swept-motion collision analysis; limits and cable flex have not been established.
• The side/rear screens are visual concept panels and do not establish guarding or safe energized operation.
• The CAD implementation decisions resolve selected static geometric clashes only; they do not constitute an approved engineering resolution of all model-review findings.

Actual selected geometry results

19 of 20 selected clearance/interference checks pass in the shown static pose. The separate valid-solid and STEP round-trip checks pass. These are computational results, not physical testing.

• Unresolved: Focus lead screw intersects locked camera envelope (W23 / W26). Exact OpenCascade boolean intersection: 1130.97335529 mm³, exceeding the 0.001 mm³ check threshold. The checked placements are retained so this reviewed-layout conflict remains inspectable.

From model proposal to compiled CAD

This crosswalk was authored after the model review and CAD compilation. The model proposal IDs and the CAD instance IDs are separate namespaces. Mapping a part does not mean that the model approved its later construction details.

Sources: actual orchestrator review, mechanical contract, compiled inventory, CAD implementation and checks, machine-readable crosswalk and bound checks.

The inventory contains 85 component instances and 8 fastener envelopes, with 46 distinct non-fastener designs and 10 functional subassemblies. These physical groups sit inside the three LIGHT planning modules.

Part crosswalk

P01–P23 and SA01–SA10 come from the actual mechanical worker findings, explicitly accepted by the final orchestrator.

Functional groups

Additional authored geometry

These designs were supplied by the later CAD author. They do not receive a fabricated P identifier or retrospective model approval. The original proposed BOM remains unchanged.

Proposed record and image references

• FX-DECK-GRID-r1 maps to P16 / W31, the deck grid. Later locating pins, clamps and coupon are distinct author additions; the reference does not establish tested workholding.
• IMG-ASM can now resolve to assembled.svg, and IMG-EXP to exploded.svg. These are renderings of the compiled geometry.
• IMG-SEC remains unresolved: the engineering drawing provides orthographic views, not a claimed section cut or motion study.
• M-SETUP-r1 is still a proposed application manifest. This crosswalk does not create a deployed staff application, an inspected sample or an acknowledged handoff.

Implementation decisions and limits

• Builder-authored focus-backplate relief: removed X244..296, Y123..133, Z163..235 mm from the locked plate envelope to clear the centered camera and ring light. The original outer plate dimensions and optical axis are unchanged. This relief was not approved by the model review.
• Builder-authored integral mounting bosses bridge the 8 mm gap from focus backplate to X carriage at X239..253 and X287..301, Y132..140, Z310..330 mm. Joint fastening and strength are unresolved.
• Builder-authored radius9.2 mm seat in the X carriage gives the nominal radius9 mm lead nut clearance; retention and screw alignment are unvalidated.
• Builder-authored camera bracket ends at Y124 mm and its neck at Z246 mm, meeting the backplate/carriage without positive-volume overlap. Guide-rod and screw passages are cut through its shelf. The lower guide block has a radius13 mm lens aperture, and the illuminator bracket a radius4.2 mm guide passage. These clearances do not establish fastening, stiffness or retention.
• Builder-authored clamp slots and diameter4.6 mm screw envelopes align to existing grid holes at (210,120) and (310,120); clamp faces touch the coupon at Z66 mm. Threads, axial retention and clamping force are undefined.
• Detailed holes, hollow sections, nominal motor/connector shapes, cable links and workholding hardware implement the concept for inspection; they do not represent qualified commercial parts.

Unresolved in the CAD author’s own manifest:

• KNOWN STATIC INTERFERENCE: the reviewed focus-screw axis passes through the reviewed camera envelope (W23/W26). The exact positive overlap is recorded as a failed digital check; the reviewed placements are deliberately retained. A revised mechanical layout and model review are required to resolve this.
• No validated fastener/retention scheme for the focus bosses, X nut, optics, rails or cable carrier.
• No swept-motion collision analysis; limits and cable flex have not been established.
• The side/rear screens are visual concept panels and do not establish guarding or safe energized operation.
• The CAD implementation decisions resolve selected static geometric clashes only; they do not constitute an approved engineering resolution of all model-review findings.

Reported CAD conflicts

The supplied dimensions can agree with the inventory while parts still overlap. The CAD builder reports these failed selected geometry checks; their conflicts remain unresolved in this saved concept.

Feet extend below the base-origin plane as an explicit authored placement. The model-reviewed outer dimensions remain traceable; added features and extra designs are identified separately.

Independent inventory comparison: 85 selected bounds, positions and counts agree within 0.0001 mm numeric tolerance. This checks the compiled inventory against the supplied values; it does not repeat the CAD kernel or prove that every interface, bore, wall, stroke or attachment is correct.

For the workstation, the original focus plate is 8 mm thick; its integrated 8 mm bosses make the finished part bounding depth 16 mm. The audit explicitly accounts for this authored addition instead of claiming that the whole finished part still has an 8 mm depth.