Decision playbooks Practical routes LMD Decision Brief v1.0

Decision playbooks for LMD questions.

These are short decision routes for repair, process selection, monitoring evidence, and RFQ preparation. Each playbook ends in a copyable LMD Decision Brief v1.0 starter.

Start cockpit Open brief template Request Exafuse review

Playbook

LMD repair playbook

Use when a damaged or worn part might be repaired by local deposition, rebuild, cladding, machining, or replacement.

Common bad assumption: Local damage automatically means repair is feasible.
What AI can help with: Structure the RFQ, expose missing facts, compare route signals, and create a review checklist.
What AI cannot prove: Approve repair, certify material, or decide safety-critical release.

LMD Repairability Quick Check LMD Repairability Index Run worn-shaft preset Request Exafuse review

Confidence is not approval. Use the playbook to structure the question, not to release a part.

What to ask first

material grade
damage depth and extent
photos
drawing/CAD
tolerance target
service conditions
inspection requirement

Decision path

Confirm material and base-part condition.
Map damage depth, extent, and access.
Check post-machining and inspection route.
Flag criticality and downtime pressure.
Prepare an expert-review package.

What changes the decision

unknown material
cracks beyond visible damage
tight tolerance
no post-machining route
safety-critical service
no inspection plan

What evidence closes the loop

material compatibility
damage map
machining allowance
inspection plan
acceptance criteria

What to send for expert review

part and material grade
damage photos and depth
drawing/CAD
tolerance and finishing need
operating conditions
inspection requirement
commercial route to Exafuse

Copy standard brief starter

# 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 repair playbook 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
A repair request should stay provisional until material, damage, access, machining, and inspection evidence are visible.

## Component
To be specified.

## Goal
Use when a damaged or worn part might be repaired by local deposition, rebuild, cladding, machining, or replacement.

## Material
Exact material grade to be specified.

## Geometry / size
Geometry, dimensions, CAD/drawing, and feature context to be specified.

## Damage or build area
Damage, build, or cladding area to be specified.

## Available data
- material grade: to be checked
- damage depth and extent: to be checked
- photos: to be checked
- drawing/CAD: to be checked
- tolerance target: to be checked
- service conditions: to be checked
- inspection requirement: to be checked

## Preliminary route
LMD repair playbook

## Review readiness
Not enough information until checklist fields are filled.

## Brief completeness
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
Requires formal qualification planning

## Evidence burden
Formal qualification burden

Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.

## Known facts
- To be filled from the RFQ or review notes.

## Missing information
### Critical gaps
- material grade
- damage depth and extent
- drawing/CAD
- service conditions
- inspection requirement

### Useful gaps
- photos
- tolerance target

### Optional context
- Not specified.

## Risk flags
- unknown material
- cracks beyond visible damage
- tight tolerance
- no post-machining route
- safety-critical service
- no inspection plan

## Evidence needed
- material compatibility
- damage map
- machining allowance
- inspection plan
- acceptance criteria

## Next action
Use LMD Repairability Quick Check, then prepare an Exafuse-ready review package.

## Exafuse review route
Request Exafuse review. Exafuse performs commercial and technical review.

## 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.

Playbook

LMD vs SLM / LPBF route-selection playbook

Use when a part or feature could be considered for LMD/DED, SLM/LPBF, hybrid manufacturing, machining, or replacement.

Common bad assumption: One metal AM acronym is automatically better.
What AI can help with: Make the route trade-offs explicit and stop unsupported process claims.
What AI cannot prove: Guarantee feasibility or replace process engineering review.

LMD vs SLM Advisor LMD RFQ Toolkit Run route-selection preset Request Exafuse review

Confidence is not approval. Use the playbook to structure the question, not to release a part.

What to ask first

part size
feature size
internal channels
local addition need
material
tolerance
qualification requirement

Decision path

Check scale and local deposition need.
Check complexity and internal features.
Check tolerance and post-processing.
Compare inspection burden.
Escalate balanced cases to expert review.

What changes the decision

feature size
internal channels
part size
need for local deposition
tolerance target
material and qualification requirements

What evidence closes the loop

geometry envelope
feature accessibility
material route
finishing plan
inspection and qualification requirement

What to send for expert review

part envelope
feature complexity
internal-channel requirement
material
tolerance
post-processing plan
inspection requirement

Copy standard brief starter

# 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 vs SLM / LPBF route-selection playbook 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
Route choice should be based on scale, local addition, complexity, tolerance, material, post-processing, and inspection burden.

## Component
To be specified.

## Goal
Use when a part or feature could be considered for LMD/DED, SLM/LPBF, hybrid manufacturing, machining, or replacement.

## Material
Exact material grade to be specified.

## Geometry / size
Geometry, dimensions, CAD/drawing, and feature context to be specified.

## Damage or build area
Damage, build, or cladding area to be specified.

## Available data
- part size: to be checked
- feature size: to be checked
- internal channels: to be checked
- local addition need: to be checked
- material: to be checked
- tolerance: to be checked
- qualification requirement: to be checked

## Preliminary route
LMD vs SLM / LPBF route-selection playbook

## Review readiness
Not enough information until checklist fields are filled.

## Brief completeness
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
Requires formal qualification planning

## Evidence burden
Formal qualification burden

Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.

## Known facts
- To be filled from the RFQ or review notes.

## Missing information
### Critical gaps
- Inspection requirement for safety-critical or high-risk cases

### Useful gaps
- tolerance

### Optional context
- part size
- feature size
- internal channels
- local addition need
- material
- qualification requirement

## Risk flags
- feature size
- internal channels
- part size
- need for local deposition
- tolerance target
- material and qualification requirements

## Evidence needed
- geometry envelope
- feature accessibility
- material route
- finishing plan
- inspection and qualification requirement

## Next action
Use LMD vs SLM Advisor, then prepare an Exafuse-ready review package.

## Exafuse review route
Request Exafuse review. Exafuse performs commercial and technical review.

## 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.

Playbook

Process monitoring vs quality evidence playbook

Use when a process signal, melt-pool image, camera anomaly, or drift trend needs interpretation.

Common bad assumption: A monitoring signal proves final quality.
What AI can help with: Flag anomalies, summarize drift, and suggest inspection questions.
What AI cannot prove: Prove material quality, fatigue behavior, service safety, or certification.

Signal is not proof explainer LMD Quality Evidence Ladder Run monitoring preset Request Exafuse review

Confidence is not approval. Use the playbook to structure the question, not to release a part.

What to ask first

signal type
sensor context
calibration context
linked part/track/layer
inspection result
acceptance criteria

Decision path

Classify the signal.
Check sensor, lighting, and calibration context.
Link signal to job, track, layer, or part record.
Look for correlation with inspection.
Define the next evidence required.

What changes the decision

correlation with inspection
drift history
sensor calibration
image quality
process repeatability
acceptance criteria

What evidence closes the loop

dimensional inspection
NDT when risk requires it
material evidence
metallography when relevant
expert review

What to send for expert review

signal source
sensor condition
linked job context
inspection evidence
acceptance criteria
review decision
boundary note

Copy standard brief starter

# 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: Process monitoring vs quality evidence playbook 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
Monitoring evidence should be treated as process awareness until it is linked to inspection and acceptance context.

## Component
To be specified.

## Goal
Use when a process signal, melt-pool image, camera anomaly, or drift trend needs interpretation.

## Material
Exact material grade to be specified.

## Geometry / size
Geometry, dimensions, CAD/drawing, and feature context to be specified.

## Damage or build area
Damage, build, or cladding area to be specified.

## Available data
- signal type: to be checked
- sensor context: to be checked
- calibration context: to be checked
- linked part/track/layer: to be checked
- inspection result: to be checked
- acceptance criteria: to be checked

## Preliminary route
Process monitoring vs quality evidence playbook

## Review readiness
Not enough information until checklist fields are filled.

## 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
Formal qualification burden

Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.

## Known facts
- To be filled from the RFQ or review notes.

## Missing information
### Critical gaps
- acceptance criteria

### Useful gaps
- Not specified.

### Optional context
- signal type
- sensor context
- calibration context
- linked part/track/layer
- inspection result

## Risk flags
- correlation with inspection
- drift history
- sensor calibration
- image quality
- process repeatability
- acceptance criteria

## Evidence needed
- dimensional inspection
- NDT when risk requires it
- material evidence
- metallography when relevant
- expert review

## Next action
Use Signal is not proof explainer, then prepare an Exafuse-ready review package.

## Exafuse review route
Request Exafuse review. Exafuse performs commercial and technical review.

## 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.

Playbook

RFQ preparation playbook

Use when a buyer has a rough LMD, repair, cladding, or DED question but not enough structure for review.

Common bad assumption: A short request is enough for feasibility.
What AI can help with: Convert free text into a structured RFQ summary and missing-information checklist.
What AI cannot prove: Make a commercial feasibility decision or replace Exafuse review.

RFQ Prompt-to-Structure Converter LMD RFQ Toolkit Run RFQ preset Request Exafuse review

Confidence is not approval. Use the playbook to structure the question, not to release a part.

What to ask first

part/component
goal
material
damage/build area
photos
drawing/CAD
service conditions
deadline

Decision path

Extract known facts.
List missing information.
Flag route-changing risks.
State evidence needed.
Prepare a compact review brief.

What changes the decision

missing material grade
missing drawing/CAD
missing damage depth
missing operating conditions
missing tolerance
missing deadline

What evidence closes the loop

material grade
drawing/CAD
damage depth
operating conditions
tolerance
inspection requirement
deadline

What to send for expert review

part/component
goal
material
damage/build area
available files
missing fields
risk flags
Exafuse review route

Copy standard brief starter

# 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: RFQ preparation playbook 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
A useful RFQ names known facts, missing fields, risk flags, evidence needed, and where expert review begins.

## Component
To be specified.

## Goal
Use when a buyer has a rough LMD, repair, cladding, or DED question but not enough structure for review.

## Material
Exact material grade to be specified.

## Geometry / size
Geometry, dimensions, CAD/drawing, and feature context to be specified.

## Damage or build area
Damage, build, or cladding area to be specified.

## Available data
- part/component: to be checked
- goal: to be checked
- material: to be checked
- damage/build area: to be checked
- photos: to be checked
- drawing/CAD: to be checked
- service conditions: to be checked
- deadline: to be checked

## Preliminary route
RFQ preparation playbook

## Review readiness
Not enough information until checklist fields are filled.

## 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
Moderate review burden

Evidence burden is a planning label, not release approval.

## Known facts
- To be filled from the RFQ or review notes.

## Missing information
### Critical gaps
- drawing/CAD
- service conditions

### Useful gaps
- photos
- deadline

### Optional context
- part/component
- goal
- material
- damage/build area

## Risk flags
- missing material grade
- missing drawing/CAD
- missing damage depth
- missing operating conditions
- missing tolerance
- missing deadline

## Evidence needed
- material grade
- drawing/CAD
- damage depth
- operating conditions
- tolerance
- inspection requirement
- deadline

## Next action
Use RFQ Prompt-to-Structure Converter, then prepare an Exafuse-ready review package.

## Exafuse review route
Request Exafuse review. Exafuse performs commercial and technical review.

## 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.