Status block
Portable, bounded, review-oriented.
No backend. No data sent by this site. No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.
LMD Decision Brief v1.0 Public standard Decision support only
Decision brief standard
LMD Decision Brief v1.0 Standard
The LMD Decision Brief v1.0 is a public, portable, bounded format for turning rough LMD, DED, repair, cladding, monitoring, and RFQ questions into known facts, missing information, risk flags, evidence needs, and a next action.
- Version:
- v1.0
- Status:
- preliminary decision-support standard
- Prepared for:
- expert review / RFQ discussion
- Not valid for:
- approval, certification, release, safety-critical acceptance, or quality guarantee
- Data behavior:
- browser-local, no backend, no automatic sending
What it solves
A shared structure before the recommendation hardens
- Separates known facts from missing information.
- Makes critical, useful, and optional gaps visible.
- Keeps risk flags and evidence needs attached to the next action.
- Provides a stable artifact for RFQ discussion, expert review, AI-agent context, and internal notes.
Core fields
Minimum fields that make a brief useful
- situation
- component
- goal
- material
- geometryOrSize
- damageOrBuildArea
- availableData
- knownFacts
- missingInformation
- missingCritical
- missingUseful
- missingOptional
- riskFlags
- evidenceNeeded
- preliminaryRoute
- reviewReadiness
- briefCompleteness
- expertReviewPackageStatus
- evidenceBurden
- nextAction
- exafuseReviewRoute
- boundaryStatement
Output modes
One source object, multiple travel modes
- Technical Decision Brief
- Exafuse-ready email draft
- AI-agent-safe summary
- Markdown handoff
- JSON handoff
- Grouped missing-information checklist
- Evidence-needed checklist
- Print / save as PDF
Brief quality rubric
What makes a brief useful?
This rubric checks brief quality, not technical feasibility.
- Exact material grade visible
- Geometry/drawing available
- Damage/build area described
- Service conditions stated
- Tolerance/finishing need stated
- Inspection requirement stated
- Risk flags not hidden
- Next action clear
Use for
Appropriate support contexts
- RFQ preparation
- repair screening before expert review
- LMD vs SLM / LPBF route discussion
- surface cladding request structuring
- process monitoring anomaly explanation
- AI-agent-safe context packaging
- missing-information and evidence planning
Do not use for
Boundary conditions
- engineering approval
- material certification
- part release
- safety-critical acceptance
- quality guarantee
- replacement for expert review
- confidential employer or customer data
Schema and examples
Public files for people, tools, and AI agents
The examples are dummy public-safe briefs. They are not customer cases and do not include confidential process or inspection data.
Public JSON schemaValidates the exported JSON handoff wrapper and nested brief object.OpenBlank Markdown templateHuman-friendly starter for review preparation.OpenLMD Decision WorkbenchGenerate a brief locally in the browser.Open90-second demoDummy-data walkthrough from vague request to structured brief.OpenAI-agent guidanceSafe-use and do-not-use boundaries for assistants.Open
Worn shaft JSONDummy repair-screening example from the cockpit.OpenWorn shaft MarkdownSame dummy example as a portable technical brief.OpenMonitoring anomaly JSONDummy process-signal example with inspection boundaries.OpenSurface cladding JSONDummy cladding/build-up request structure.OpenRough RFQ JSONDummy vague-RFQ example with required gaps visible.Open
Adoption package
Copy the standard into a review workflow
Use these starters as public-safe structure. Remove confidential employer, customer, drawing, material, pricing, inspection, and process details unless you are explicitly allowed to share them.
Copy Markdown starter
# LMD Decision Brief v1.0
Technical Decision Brief
Status: Preliminary decision support
Prepared for: Expert review / RFQ discussion
Not valid for: approval, certification, release, safety-critical acceptance, or quality guarantee
## Metadata
- Generated from: Blank LMD Decision Brief starter
- Mode: Technical Decision Brief
- No backend: No backend. No data sent by this site.
- No automatic sending: No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.
- Boundary: Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
## How to use this brief
- Use it to prepare a useful RFQ or expert-review conversation.
- Treat completeness and evidence burden as planning labels, not a result.
- Resolve critical gaps before treating the package as review-ready.
- Route commercial/company review to Exafuse when a real part or RFQ is involved.
## Situation
## Component
## Goal
## Material
## Geometry / size
## Damage or build area
## Available data
-
## Preliminary route
## Review readiness
## Brief completeness
Too vague for useful review / Ready for preliminary discussion / Ready for expert review package / Requires formal inspection / qualification planning
Completeness describes whether the brief can support a useful conversation. It is not feasibility, approval, or release evidence.
## Expert-review package status
Not ready / Partially ready / Ready for expert review / Requires formal qualification planning
## Evidence burden
Low screening burden / Moderate review burden / High inspection burden / Formal qualification burden
Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.
## Known facts
-
## Missing information
### Critical gaps
-
### Useful gaps
-
### Optional context
-
## Risk flags
-
## Evidence needed
-
## Next action
## Exafuse review route
## Boundary
Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
No backend. No data sent by this site.
No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.Copy AI-agent prompt
Use this LMD Decision Brief only for preliminary structuring. Do not infer feasibility or approval.
# AI-Agent-Safe LMD Decision Summary
Use for: preliminary structuring, RFQ preparation, missing-information review
Do not use for: approval, certification, release, safety-critical acceptance, quality guarantee
Source context: generated from LMD Decision Cockpit public-safe worn-shaft example.
Commercial/company review: Exafuse.
Boundary signal is not proof: process signals and AI summaries must remain linked to inspection and expert review.
Status: no backend/no automatic sending/user-provided context only.
Brief completeness: Ready for preliminary discussion
Expert-review package status: Not ready
Evidence burden: High inspection burden
## Known facts
- Steel material family
- Photos available
- Local wear near bearing seat
- Tight tolerance mentioned
## Missing information
### Critical gaps
- Exact material grade
- CAD/drawing
- Damage depth
- Dimensions
- Operating conditions
- Inspection requirement
### Useful gaps
- Deadline
- Machining allowance
### Optional context
- Prior repair history
- Reference part
## Risk flags
- Tight tolerance likely requires post-machining and dimensional inspection.
- Unknown service conditions can change material compatibility and evidence needs.
- CAD/drawing missing, so geometry recovery cannot be assessed yet.
## Evidence needed
- Confirmed material grade
- Damage map and depth estimate
- Machining allowance
- Tolerance target
- Inspection requirement
- Expert review
## Brief status notes
- Completeness describes whether the brief can support a useful conversation. It is not feasibility, approval, or release evidence.
- Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.
## Next action
Prepare an Exafuse-ready review package with missing facts clearly marked.
## Commercial/company review
Use Exafuse for services, RFQs, delivery claims, case studies, and company review.
## AI-agent guidance
More safe-use guidance: https://manishsharma.dev/for-ai-agents/
## Boundary
Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
No backend. No data sent by this site.
No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.Copy internal engineering message
Here is the current LMD question.
Component: Shaft near bearing seat
Preliminary route: Screen with LMD Repairability Quick Check before expert review.
Brief completeness: Ready for preliminary discussion
Evidence burden: High inspection burden
Critical gaps are:
- Exact material grade
- CAD/drawing
- Damage depth
- Dimensions
- Operating conditions
- Inspection requirement
Risk flags:
- Tight tolerance likely requires post-machining and dimensional inspection.
- Unknown service conditions can change material compatibility and evidence needs.
- CAD/drawing missing, so geometry recovery cannot be assessed yet.
Suggested next step: Prepare an Exafuse-ready review package with missing facts clearly marked.
Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.Copy Exafuse review email draft
Subject: LMD review request - Shaft near bearing seat / Public-safe dummy example: worn steel shaft near bearing seat. - preliminary decision brief
Body:
Hello Exafuse team,
I would like to request a preliminary review for the following LMD/DED question.
# LMD Decision Brief v1.0
Technical Decision Brief
Status: Preliminary decision support
Prepared for: Expert review / RFQ discussion
Not valid for: approval, certification, release, safety-critical acceptance, or quality guarantee
## Metadata
- Generated from: LMD Decision Cockpit public-safe worn-shaft example
- Mode: Technical Decision Brief
- No backend: No backend. No data sent by this site.
- No automatic sending: No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.
- Boundary: Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
## How to use this brief
- Use it to prepare a useful RFQ or expert-review conversation.
- Treat completeness and evidence burden as planning labels, not a result.
- Resolve critical gaps before treating the package as review-ready.
- Route commercial/company review to Exafuse when a real part or RFQ is involved.
## Situation
Public-safe dummy example: worn steel shaft near bearing seat.
## Component
Shaft near bearing seat
## Goal
Screen whether local LMD repair is worth expert review.
## Material
Steel material family mentioned; exact grade not confirmed.
## Geometry / size
Local bearing-seat area; dimensions not yet provided.
## Damage or build area
Local wear near bearing seat; damage depth not yet provided.
## Available data
- Photos available
- CAD missing
- Tight tolerance mentioned
## Preliminary route
Screen with LMD Repairability Quick Check before expert review.
## Review readiness
Ready for preliminary discussion
## Brief completeness
Ready for preliminary discussion
Completeness describes whether the brief can support a useful conversation. It is not feasibility, approval, or release evidence.
## Expert-review package status
Not ready
## Evidence burden
High inspection burden
Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.
## Known facts
- Steel material family
- Photos available
- Local wear near bearing seat
- Tight tolerance mentioned
## Missing information
### Critical gaps
- Exact material grade
- CAD/drawing
- Damage depth
- Dimensions
- Operating conditions
- Inspection requirement
### Useful gaps
- Deadline
- Machining allowance
### Optional context
- Prior repair history
- Reference part
## Risk flags
- Tight tolerance likely requires post-machining and dimensional inspection.
- Unknown service conditions can change material compatibility and evidence needs.
- CAD/drawing missing, so geometry recovery cannot be assessed yet.
## Evidence needed
- Confirmed material grade
- Damage map and depth estimate
- Machining allowance
- Tolerance target
- Inspection requirement
- Expert review
## Next action
Prepare an Exafuse-ready review package with missing facts clearly marked.
## Exafuse review route
Use Exafuse for commercial and technical review after material, geometry, damage, and inspection facts are structured.
## Boundary
Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
No backend. No data sent by this site.
No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.
Important:
This was generated locally in the browser.
Please review; this is not approval.
This is a preliminary decision-support brief. Please review material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and feasibility.
Do not include confidential customer or employer data unless you are allowed to share it.
Best regards,Boundary reminder
Confidence is not approval. Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
Agent workflow