Prepare reviewed CNC setups and machining programs

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Part and setup description

   Owner

   Responsible machinist

   Minimum scope

   Fictional geometry features, stock identity and setup intent

   Quality check

   Mark uncertain material, dimensions and datum assumptions.

2. Name

   Tooling and workholding manifest

   Owner

   Machinist

   Minimum scope

   Approved tool and fixture identifiers with review requirements

   Quality check

   Identify missing compatibility and holding information.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Text-only setup descriptors and a proposed review checklist without CAD or machine access.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, machine-specific CAM support, tool-library accuracy and simulation capability.

External actions requiring approval

1. Machinist approval of setup assumptions and warnings; separately authorize uploads, saving, post-processing and any physical operation.

Why use this

1. A machining preparation task combines assumptions about material, stock, tooling and workholding that may not be evident in the model. A generated toolpath can look orderly while leaving an unresolved collision or setup hazard that requires a competent machinist's attention.

2. A setup-review packet could collect those assumptions and make unresolved warnings impossible to overlook. The machinist could decide whether the proposed preparation is ready for further authorized CAM work while keeping simulation, post-processing and physical operation separately controlled.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Organize setup dependencies and identify missing or conflicting machine, stock and fixture information.

Simpler alternative

Use an established machinist-reviewed setup template for a repeat part with unchanged equipment and tooling.

Unsuitable when

The workflow lacks a competent machinist or expects generated warnings to replace collision simulation.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Setup proposal with stock, tooling, workholding questions and required human simulation evidence.

Critical checks

1. Every unresolved warning is retained with a named reviewer.

2. Rule-based checks are never described as proof of collision-free or safe operation.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection was performed for this overlay; use the canonical source-outcome references.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

An invented setup manifest omits a fixture and marks an unresolved clearance warning as passed.

Acceptance checks

1. Reject the false pass.

2. Require complete workholding information without producing toolpaths or machine instructions.

Stop conditions

1. CAD execution, machining parameters, G-code or physical equipment access is required.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   The proposed fixture is absent from the setup description.

   Why it matters

   Toolpath planning may omit a physical obstruction.

   Proposed response

   Stop preparation and request the machinist's complete workholding representation.

2. Signal

   A warning is dismissed because toolpath generation completed.

   Why it matters

   Successful generation does not resolve machining hazards.

   Proposed response

   Reopen the warning and require explicit expert review before any subsequent operation.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Inventory setup assumptions and mandatory human checkpoints.

Ongoing review

1. Inspect warnings and later authorized simulation evidence.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: CAM compatibility, machining cost and expert verification effort.

Limits

1. The proposed manifest review establishes no machinability or physical safety and cannot substitute for human collision simulation.