Bait Scenarios¶
Status: Hypothesis set Validation status: AI-generated and founder-informed, not customer-confirmed
These scenarios are conversation tools, not product requirements. Their job is to make a real target user react:
- "Yes, this happens."
- "No, this is not how it works."
- "The real issue is different."
- "This part is right, but this consequence is wrong."
- "This would matter, but the buyer is someone else."
Show one scenario per discovery conversation. Do not expand this page into eight industries before the first three calls.
Scenario Standard¶
Each scenario should make these visible:
| Slot | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Persona | names who owns the consequence, not just who uses CAD |
| Trigger moment | shows when the pain bites |
| Current screen | forces the story down to artifact level |
| Failure mode | names the exact wrong or missing thing |
| Downstream consequence | ties the issue to cost, delay, or audit risk |
| RapidDraft finding | shows the evidence-backed issue card |
| Required data | keeps the scenario technically honest |
| Feasibility | separates demo-safe checks from judgment-grade checks |
| Validation status | prevents plausible fiction from becoming "truth" |
Packaging Machinery Release¶
Status: Hypothesis Why first: ETO machine builders are drawing-central, release events are concrete, and the design lead may have release authority. This is likely easier to close than a deep NX/Teamcenter/SAP battery-pack environment.
Andreas, a Konstruktionsleiter at a confectionery packaging-machine OEM, is about to sign the Konstruktionsfreigabe for a high-speed chocolate-bar flow-wrapper module. The package contains roughly 140 part drawings plus the module BOM for Einkauf and Fertigung. He is measured on FAT date and post-release ECO count.
It is Friday afternoon. Geometry passed design review. Andreas has a 22-row Excel checklist he is supposed to verify across 140 drawings; he has eyeballed maybe 30. Monday is the RFQ deadline.
Current screen:
- PDM tree
- drawing thumbnails
- BOM export
- Excel release checklist
- supplier package folder
- email or Teams thread
Candidate failure modes:
| Pos. | What is wrong | Where it hurts | Required data | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Parent assembly references bracket Rev B; child was bumped to Rev C two days ago | assembly interference, ECO, release cleanup | BOM or metadata export with revision references | medium, low false-positive risk |
| 47 | Drive-shaft lost its H7/k6 fit callout on the 35 mm bearing seat | machining ambiguity, scrap, lost shop slot | drawing geometry, feature intent, mating context, expected-fit rule | hard, high false-positive risk |
| 88 | Product-contact guide plate notes 1.4301; family hygiene spec requires 1.4404 for acidic wash-down | audit/customer/field risk | material note, product-zone rule, family spec | hard unless customer supplies rules |
RapidDraft bait screen:
- Package not ready.
- 2 blockers, 1 warning.
- Evidence-backed issue cards with drawing/BOM/spec crops.
- Human-approved handoff packet after resolution.
Discovery questions:
- Does this resemble a real release failure?
- Who would catch it today?
- Which example is unrealistic?
- Which issue would make someone angry enough to pay?
- Who owns the budget for preventing it?
Battery Cooling Plate Release¶
Status: Hypothesis Why preserve: High founder domain credibility, but likely slower to close because NX, Teamcenter, SAP, supplier qualification, security, and procurement layers are heavier.
A battery-pack engineer releases a liquid cooling plate and busbar assembly to a contract manufacturer after a late thermal change.
Candidate failure modes:
| Item | What is wrong | Where it hurts | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooling plate | sealing surface has no finish or flatness callout | leak-test failure and lost build slot | hard without feature/function context |
| Busbar | creepage or clearance rule not reflected in the release package | HiPot or safety review failure | needs customer rules and geometry context |
| Plate/frame interface | dissimilar-metal contact has no galvanic isolation note | corrosion or warranty risk | needs standards/rules |
| Supplier ZIP | STEP revision does not match drawing revision | supplier builds wrong geometry | medium and demo-safe if metadata is explicit |
Use this scenario to test whether battery-pack release readiness is a better first wedge than machine-building, or whether it belongs later because the integration and enterprise path are heavier.
Automotive PPAP Release¶
Status: Hypothesis Why preserve: PPAP/FAI tests a quality buyer where first-pass approval and auditability may already be budgeted outcomes.
A PPAP lead assembles a production part approval package against an OEM portal deadline. The package includes a ballooned drawing, control plan, material certs, inspection report, BOM, and revision history.
Candidate failure modes:
| Item | What is wrong | Where it hurts | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special characteristic | drawing marks a critical feature with no matching control-plan entry | OEM rejects package | medium if drawing extraction and control plan fields are structured |
| Material cert | cert does not match drawing callout | quality rejection or supplier loop | medium |
| Inspection report | datum scheme inconsistent with drawing | measurement dispute or rejection | hard if GD&T interpretation is required |
| Binder revision | PPAP binder references superseded revision after late ECO | submission rejection | medium if revision refs are explicit |
This may reveal a stronger buyer than engineering if quality already owns the consequence and the budget.
How To Use This Page¶
- Pick one scenario that matches the interviewee.
- Show it after asking for their own failure story.
- Record frowns, corrections, and real examples.
- Move real failures into Failure Ledger.
- Do not graduate a scenario to validated until a real customer confirms it.
Open Questions¶
- Is packaging machinery actually easier to close, or just easier to imagine?
- Does PPAP/FAI have a clearer buyer and budget than general release readiness?
- Which scenario yields the first artifact that can be used for a one-check demo?
Sources¶
_sources/pivot_files_claude/Use_Case_Standard.md_sources/pivot_files_claude/UseCase_Packaging_Machinery_Release.md_sources/pivot_files_claude/UseCase_Template.md_sources/pivot_gpt_files/critique_output.md