A Camera Is Not a Certificate
Why camera and melt-pool signals can support LMD/DED process review but cannot certify final quality on their own.
One-line thesis
A camera can show a process event; it does not certify the final part.
Why it matters in LMD/DED
Vision and melt-pool data can reveal anomalies, drift, or review points, but release evidence depends on inspection, testing, and acceptance criteria.
Common mistake
Interpreting a clean camera stream as proof that material quality, geometry, and service safety are all acceptable.
Better decision question
What inspection evidence is needed to interpret this signal for the specific part risk?
What evidence is needed
Sensor context, calibration context, linked track/layer/part record, dimensional inspection, NDT or material evidence where risk requires it, and expert review.
What changes the decision
Signal-to-part traceability, sensor condition, correlation with inspection, acceptance criteria, and part criticality change what the camera evidence can support.
Related playbook/tool
Use the monitoring/evidence playbook or monitoring-anomaly cockpit preset before turning a signal into an LMD Decision Brief v1.0.
Exafuse route if commercial review is needed
Request Exafuse review: use Exafuse for company-owned technical and commercial review.
Boundary disclaimer
Preliminary decision-support only. Final feasibility depends on base material, geometry, service conditions, inspection requirements, and expert review.
Related pages
Related source notes
These are working-draft source notes for future citation links. They are not citations and should not be treated as verified references until a real source URL is added.