RFQs Fail When They Hide Risk
Why useful LMD/DED RFQs make material, geometry, damage, service, tolerance, deadline, and inspection gaps visible.
One-line thesis
A good RFQ does not hide risk; it makes missing information visible early.
Why it matters in LMD/DED
Repair, cladding, and route-selection decisions can change completely when material grade, damage depth, tolerance, or inspection expectations are missing.
Common mistake
Sending a short request and asking for feasibility before the technical review facts exist.
Better decision question
What information is missing, and which missing field could change the process route or evidence burden?
What evidence is needed
Exact material grade, drawing/CAD, photos, damage depth, dimensions, tolerance, operating conditions, inspection requirement, and deadline.
What changes the decision
Unknown material, missing damage depth, missing CAD, tight tolerance, service load, inspection requirement, and deadline pressure can all change the route.
Related playbook/tool
Use the RFQ preparation playbook, RFQ preset, and LMD Decision Brief v1.0 template before asking for feasibility.
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.