Validate Nest, the posting review and console --post now report a
"Part spacing" finding for pairs of parts that do not overlap but sit
closer than the plate's part spacing. Before, only Auto Nest's
Keep/Discard review checked spacing, so hand-edited layouts could be
validated and posted with parts too close together.
Candidates are found with Auto Nest's own outline test, moved into Core
as SpacingOutline (NestLayoutCheck and NestTolerances now use it; Engine
tests unchanged). Because that outline circumscribes arcs by more than
the spacing slack, each candidate is confirmed on native contours
flattened 20x finer than the slack, so arcs placed exactly at the
spacing by interactive fills stay clear. The finding reports the
measured gap and marks the middle of the closest approach. Overlapping
pairs, cut-offs, zero spacing, the plate edge and clamps are not
reported as spacing findings.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Thick plate pierces leave a crater wider than the kerf. CuttingParameters.PierceDiameter
(Cutting Settings > Pierce Diameter, 0 = off) requires every lead-in pierce to keep half
of it from all part material: its own contour, its holes and every other part.
- LeadPathValidator checks the zone during Plan Cutting candidate checks and final
replay; fixed emissions warn as usual. No-fit findings explain the zone.
- PierceZoneReview reports Pierce zone warnings before posting for leads from any source.
- Holes whose configured pierce is inside the zone move it toward the hole's PolyLabel
pole (round holes: the centre), as close to the contour as the zone allows; a hole
too small for the zone is pierced at its pole and the shortfall is still reported.
- Straight corner leads and round-hole clamping use the larger of PierceClearance and
the zone radius. The manual lead-in preview shares the Core rules.
- Persisted through the DTO, owned copies and state fingerprint.
Perimeter fallback is not included; see docs/geometry/pierce-zone.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Posting review now proves containment exactly as the cutting planner does
(shared NestedPartContainment) and warns when a nested part is cut after its
host (NestedCutOrder) or when a host's hole lead or the nested part's lead
meets the other's material (NestedLead), including subprogram hole poses.
Ambiguous containment is incomplete, never clear; fixed-lead motions are not
reported twice. A committed cutout preview warns until Plan Cutting cuts the
insert first.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
D1a (user, 2026-10-14): one locked cutout must not refuse the whole layout.
With confirmed parameters a locked program is now a fixed emission, accepted
as given. The replay checker and the lead validator take a per-motion owner:
a violation inside the fixed emission (a lead meeting another part's or its
own material, a rapid inside the locked program crossing a cut contour, an
uncertifiable tab gap or a partial/reversed/retraced cut) is recorded apart
instead of failing the candidate. The search never rejects or learns an order
rule from them, so fixed emissions never steer it; the planner's rapid into
the locked program and every regenerated lead keep every strict check.
Replay turns those violations into typed FixedLead findings that name the
part, contour and the part hit. A plate whose only findings are these is
BestEffort with IndependentlyReplayed set: never Ready, applicable only with
the per-proposal acceptance, and CuttingPlanService.Apply still rejects it.
Overlap, unreadable programs, stale input and cancellation still block, and
unlocked programs a caller left ineligible and the no-parameter route keep
refusing as before.
Pre-post review now re-checks locked leads against every part's clean
material, so the same violations reappear before posting.
Existing tests that encoded the old locked refusal now assert the warning;
two batch tests that used a locked crossing as their hard block use an
overlap instead. The 5.1 digests are unchanged.
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