LMD Decision Brief v1.0 Copyable Markdown No backend

Use one standard brief for rough LMD questions.

LMD Decision Brief v1.0 turns a vague repair, cladding, route-selection, monitoring, or RFQ question into known facts, missing information, risk flags, evidence needed, next action, and Exafuse review route.

Confidence is not approval. The brief is preliminary decision-support, not engineering release, material certification, or a quality guarantee.

Current version: LMD Decision Brief v1.0. Standard output modes: Technical Decision Brief, Exafuse-ready email draft, and AI summary.

Start cockpit with this structure Open public standard See filled demo Open JSON schema Request Exafuse review

Why this brief exists

It makes uncertainty usable.

Rough LMD questions usually mix facts, assumptions, missing data, and risks.
A single brief format keeps known facts, missing information, risk flags, evidence needs, and review route visible.
The output is easy to copy into email, RFQ notes, agent prompts, or expert-review preparation.

When to use it

Use it before the recommendation hardens.

Before asking whether an LMD repair is feasible.
Before comparing LMD with SLM/LPBF, machining, replacement, or cladding.
When process monitoring produces a signal that needs inspection context.
When a buyer request is too vague for a serious technical review.

Brief standard notes

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

No backend, no input storage, no analytics around entered technical content, and no automatic email sending.

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

Standard files

Schema and non-confidential examples

Use these files when the brief needs to travel through tools, RFQ notes, assistant prompts, or docs without changing its boundary.

LMD Decision Brief v1.0 Standard Human-readable public standard and adoption package. Open JSON schema Machine-readable schema for exported JSON handoffs. Open

Worn shaft JSON Dummy repair-screening example from the cockpit. Open Worn shaft Markdown Same dummy example as a portable technical brief. Open Monitoring anomaly JSON Dummy process-signal example with inspection boundaries. Open Surface cladding JSON Dummy cladding/build-up request structure. Open Rough RFQ JSON Dummy vague-RFQ example with required gaps visible. Open

Copy standard

Markdown template preview

Copy this blank standard when the user has not entered enough information yet. The fields are intentionally plain so they can travel through email, docs, AI agents, and RFQ notes.

# 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.

Filled example

Non-confidential worn-shaft dummy brief

This is not a customer case. It is the default dummy example used by the cockpit so first-time visitors can see the artifact without entering data.

Open raw Markdown Example

# 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 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
Example scenario: 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.

Decision brief

LMD Decision Brief v1.0

Artifact

LMD Decision Brief v1.0

Status

Preliminary decision support

Prepared for

Expert review / RFQ discussion

Not valid for

approval, certification, release, safety-critical acceptance, or quality guarantee

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.

Metadata:

Generated from: LMD Decision Cockpit worn-shaft example
Mode: Technical Decision Brief
No backend. No data sent by this site.
No automatic sending. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.

Situation:

Example scenario: 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.

Review readiness:

Ready for preliminary discussion

Brief completeness:

Ready for preliminary discussion

Expert-review package status:

Not ready

Evidence burden:

High inspection burden

Completeness note:

Completeness describes whether the brief can support a useful conversation. It is not feasibility, approval, or release evidence.

Evidence burden note:

Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.

Preliminary route:

Screen with LMD Repairability Quick Check before expert review.

Available data:

Photos available
CAD missing
Tight tolerance mentioned

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.

No-backend note:

No backend. No data sent by this site.

Do not include confidential customer or employer data unless you are allowed to share it.
Manual draft only. Nothing is sent unless you send it from your own email client.

Copy and export

;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;

Next actions

Review before sending. Remove confidential data if needed.

Copy share snippetsNo auto-posting

These snippets are generated locally from the same brief. They do not post, send, track, or store anything.

;
;
;
;