# 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.