Manish Sharma Lab
Exafuse Contact
Menu
Before / after Dummy data LMD Decision Brief v1.0

Before / after: vague request to usable brief

This walkthrough uses public-safe dummy data. It shows how the site exposes known facts, missing information, risk flags, evidence needs, and the Exafuse review route without storing or sending inputs.

The final object is portable: copy it into review notes, email, AI-agent context, Markdown docs, JSON handoff, or print/PDF.

Run this in cockpit Open brief standard Start your own brief Request Exafuse review

Before

Vague request

Worn steel shaft near bearing seat. Photos available. CAD missing. Tight tolerance. Operating conditions unknown.

After

Usable brief

  • Known facts: Steel material family, local wear near bearing seat, photos available, tight tolerance mentioned.
  • Critical gaps: Exact material grade, CAD/drawing, damage depth, dimensions, operating conditions, inspection requirement.
  • Risk flags: Tight tolerance, unknown service conditions, and missing CAD keep the package from expert-review readiness.
  • Evidence burden: High inspection burden.
  • Next action: Prepare an Exafuse-ready review package with missing facts clearly marked.
  • Exafuse review route: Request Exafuse review after material, geometry, damage, and inspection facts are structured.

Copy this example brief

# 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.

Start

Start your own brief
01

Vague request

Worn steel shaft near bearing seat. Photos available. CAD missing. Tight tolerance. Operating conditions unknown.

02

Structured facts

The site extracts a repair situation, steel material family, local wear near a bearing seat, photos available, and tight tolerance.

03

Missing information

Exact material grade, CAD/drawing, damage depth, dimensions, operating conditions, inspection requirement, and deadline stay visible.

04

Risk flags

Tight tolerance likely requires machining and dimensional inspection. Unknown service conditions can change the evidence burden.

05

Evidence needed

Material grade, damage map, machining allowance, tolerance target, inspection requirement, and expert review.

06

Decision brief

The final artifact is a copyable LMD Decision Brief v1.0, not a feasibility approval.

07

Exafuse review route

Use Exafuse for commercial and technical review after the public-safe structure is ready.

Final artifact

LMD Decision Brief v1.0

The demo ends with a clean brief that can be copied as a technical brief, Exafuse-ready email draft, AI-agent-safe summary, Markdown, JSON, print/PDF, or grouped checklist.

Technical Decision BriefExafuse-Ready Email DraftAI-Agent-Safe SummaryMissing-information checklistEvidence-needed checklistMarkdown, JSON, and print/PDF handoff
Run in cockpit Start your own brief

Copy this example brief

# 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.

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 public-safe 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:

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.

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.

  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;

Standard files

Reuse the artifact outside the demo.

The demo is one dummy path through the same portable standard. Use the schema and examples for AI-agent context, review notes, or tool checks.

LMD Decision Brief v1.0 StandardHuman-readable standard and adoption package.OpenJSON schemaMachine-readable validation contract.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

Agent workflow

Turn vague requests into usable LMD data

RFQ ToolkitSchema, prompts, rules, and checklists.Open →Request Exafuse reviewCommercial RFQ route for company review.Open →Industrial AI ThesisSense, Model, Decide, Verify.Open →Full Site MapEvery page and public machine-readable asset in one linked map.Open →