Converted part programs keep a source CAM's overcut: a hole's arc or a slot's
last line runs about 0.03 past the pierce along the first cut. The rapid check
only counted a contour closed when it ended exactly at its start, so every
overcut contour became an open fragment, the open-cut proof refused them, and
each part reported "Multiple interrupted/open cutting fragments" and an
unverifiable lead-out instead of being checked (P260810-02: all 50 parts).
ReleasedContourState now closes such a contour at its seam (matched at the
1e-6 seam tolerance, since a hole's two arcs carry centers ~1e-7 apart) and
lets the rapid leaving the overcut end ignore contact within that tolerance of
its departure. The nest now validates fully and reports the real crossings it
was hiding: rapids that cross the hole just cut.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Full circles now take InternalLeadIn/InternalLeadOut like every other
cutout; the ArcCircle lead settings and the cutting panel's Arc / Circle
tab are removed. Circle-specific geometry handling (radius clamp, angle
rounding, pierce zone) is unchanged.
Older nest files and desktop settings still load: their arcCircleLeadIn/
arcCircleLeadOut keys are ignored and no longer written, so re-planned
circles take the internal leads. Saved part programs are untouched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A cutout cut in several pieces around tabs, as PEP programs often are, made
pre-post review report every piece's lead-out and the part's open fragments
as incomplete. Review now proves such open cuts release nothing: within the
part they touch other cuts only at their own ends and form no loop (each
closed contour with its leads counting as one point), and leads at open ends
stay out of the gap beyond them. Anything else stays incomplete. Plan Cutting
keeps refusing to certify its own tabs followed by a lead-out.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Report, dialog and diagnostic text across post verification, cutoff
planning, alignment and cutting-plan review repeatedly told the user
what checks weren't (safety certifications, proof, guarantees) instead
of what to do. Reworded these to state the same caveats affirmatively
(inspect X, confirm Y, review Z) without changing the underlying
safety guidance, and updated the tests/docs that pinned the old wording.
ajandClaude Opus 5.5