Avilus Use Cases¶
Status: Customer evidence Validation status: Avilus-specific pains are customer-described in June-July meeting notes; no artifact, checklist, Teamcenter export, LOI, NDA, or pilot data exchange has been completed yet.
This page turns the Avilus notes into concrete use cases. The strongest Avilus wedge is drawing standards and completeness in a Teamcenter release context, with DFM checks for sheet metal and composites as the account-specific technical angle.
Evidence Boundary¶
| Evidence | Source | How to treat it |
|---|---|---|
| Contact context: Franz, structural lead CAD design; Felix also mentioned | June-July meeting notes | direct Avilus meeting context |
| Need to verify that an engineer's drawing corresponds to company standard | June-July meeting notes | direct Avilus evidence |
| Drawing is missing simple information | June-July meeting notes | direct Avilus evidence |
| Completeness examples: missing dimensions, missing surfaces, material not specified | June-July meeting notes | direct Avilus evidence |
| DFM interest: sheet metal bent parts and composite parts | June-July meeting notes | direct Avilus evidence |
| Drawing file mentioned as sheet metal; PLM is Teamcenter | June-July meeting notes | direct Avilus evidence |
| Next steps: share email summary, ask for LOI and NDA, request in-person meeting for data and infrastructure exchange | June-July meeting notes | process context |
Priority Backlog¶
| Priority | Use case | Owner signal | Why first |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | A-01 Drawing Standard Compliance Checker | Franz / Avilus notes | clearest direct ask |
| P0 | A-02 Drawing Completeness Preflight | Avilus notes | concrete examples: dimensions, surfaces, material |
| P1 | A-03 Sheet Metal Bend Drawing Checker | Avilus notes | specific artifact and process mentioned |
| P1 | A-04 Teamcenter Release Package Review | Avilus notes | PLM context identified |
| P1 | A-05 Composite Part Review Checklist | Avilus notes | specific technical interest, likely needs customer rules |
| P2 | A-06 Data Exchange / Pilot Intake Pack | Avilus next steps | needed before artifact-backed demo |
A-01 Drawing Standard Compliance Checker¶
Persona: Structural CAD lead, drawing reviewer, or design engineer preparing a drawing for review.
Trigger: An engineer creates or updates a drawing and Avilus needs to verify it corresponds to internal drawing standards.
Current failure mode: Drawing quality depends on the engineer and reviewer. The notes explicitly mention verifying that a drawing corresponds to the company standard.
Required inputs to request from Avilus:
- one anonymized drawing file, ideally the sheet metal example mentioned in the notes
- Avilus drawing standard or checklist
- examples of common deviations
- title-block requirements
- material/surface/dimension rules
- release workflow context from Teamcenter
RapidDraft behavior:
| Check | Concrete behavior | Example finding |
|---|---|---|
| Standard fields | Verify mandatory title-block and drawing metadata | "Material field is empty." |
| Drawing standard rules | Compare drawing against customer checklist | "Required surface information not specified." |
| Dimension presence | Flag missing or suspiciously incomplete dimensions where reliable | "Bend flange has no controlling dimension." |
| Surface/specification notes | Check whether required surfaces or finishes are identified | "Specified surface is missing for functional contact area." |
| Evidence pointer | Link finding to sheet, zone, note, or feature evidence | "Sheet 1, zone C3." |
Output: Standards compliance report with source references, severity, and recommended reviewer action.
MVP slice: One drawing standard and one drawing artifact. Do not attempt full geometric design judgment until Avilus supplies explicit rules.
A-02 Drawing Completeness Preflight¶
Persona: Drawing owner or release reviewer before the drawing enters Teamcenter release.
Trigger: A drawing is ready to move toward release or review.
Current failure mode: Simple but critical information is missing: dimensions, surfaces, and material.
Required inputs:
- drawing PDF or CAD-neutral export
- list of mandatory fields by drawing type
- known failing examples
- material and surface specification rules
RapidDraft behavior:
- check required material information is present
- check required dimensions exist for the process-specific drawing type
- flag missing surface/surface-treatment notes
- compare visible drawing fields to BOM/Teamcenter metadata if available
- generate a concise preflight issue list
Output: Completeness checklist with blockers, warnings, and evidence links.
MVP slice: Title-block, material, surface, and clearly required dimension checks. Avoid claiming full "all missing dimensions" detection without a rule and artifact.
A-03 Sheet Metal Bend Drawing Checker¶
Persona: CAD/design engineer working on sheet metal bent parts.
Trigger: A sheet metal drawing is prepared for release or manufacturing review.
Current failure mode: The notes mention sheet metal bent parts, bending parameters, and specifying the table. This suggests bend-specific manufacturing information may be missing or inconsistent.
Required inputs:
- one sheet metal drawing
- bend table / bending parameter standard
- material and thickness fields
- bend radius, bend angle, K-factor or bend allowance rules if used
- manufacturing handoff requirements
RapidDraft behavior:
- verify bend table or bend parameters are present where required
- compare material/thickness against bend rules
- flag missing bend radius, bend angle, or process notes where rule-backed
- identify contradictions between drawing notes and BOM/material metadata
Output: Sheet metal release findings with bend table, material/thickness, and missing parameter checks.
MVP slice: Rule-based checks only. Use Avilus's own bend table/standard as the authority.
A-04 Teamcenter Release Package Review¶
Persona: Teamcenter release owner, drawing reviewer, or CAD lead.
Trigger: A drawing and related metadata are in Teamcenter and need review before release.
Current failure mode: Drawing and PLM metadata can drift. The meeting notes identify Teamcenter, which means RapidDraft should fit release workflow rather than become a separate upload-only side process.
Required inputs:
- Teamcenter export or sample package
- drawing revision, part number, lifecycle state, owner, and BOM metadata
- release checklist
- file inventory requirements
RapidDraft behavior:
- compare drawing metadata to Teamcenter fields
- check lifecycle/revision readiness
- attach or export a review report for the release record
- keep release approval with the engineer/reviewer
Output: Teamcenter-ready release findings report.
MVP slice: Export-based review first. Live Teamcenter API/writeback only after NDA and infrastructure exchange.
A-05 Composite Part Review Checklist¶
Persona: Structural CAD lead or composite part reviewer.
Trigger: Composite part design or drawing is prepared for review.
Current failure mode: Avilus asked whether composite parts can be checked, but no specific composite rule is captured yet.
Required inputs:
- one composite part drawing or package
- Avilus composite checklist
- material/layup/ply/orientation requirements if relevant
- examples of common composite review defects
RapidDraft behavior:
- check explicit required fields, notes, and tables
- flag missing material/layup/process information where rule-backed
- create review items for human approval
Output: Composite checklist findings, not autonomous composite design validation.
MVP slice: Only after Avilus provides a checklist or example defect. Keep it as a P1/P2 exploration until then.
A-06 Data Exchange / Pilot Intake Pack¶
Persona: Avilus engineering lead, IT/security contact, and RapidDraft pilot owner.
Trigger: After summary email, LOI/NDA, and in-person meeting request.
Current failure mode: Without a structured data exchange, the use cases cannot move from customer-described to artifact-seen.
Required inputs:
- NDA and permitted data boundary
- sample drawing package
- Teamcenter export format
- company drawing standard/checklist
- sheet metal bend table
- security and infrastructure constraints
RapidDraft behavior:
- define a minimal artifact request
- map each file to a demo check
- record which findings count as success
- avoid broad integration before the first artifact-backed proof
Output: Pilot data checklist and 30-day proof scope.
Recommended Demo Sequence¶
- Start with A-01 Drawing Standard Compliance Checker on one Avilus drawing.
- Add A-02 Drawing Completeness Preflight using missing dimensions, surfaces, and material as the first concrete findings.
- Use A-03 Sheet Metal Bend Drawing Checker if the sample is the sheet metal drawing mentioned in the notes.
- Add A-04 Teamcenter Release Package Review once Teamcenter export/API access is clarified.
- Keep composites as a second technical proof after Avilus supplies rules.
Validation Assets To Ask For¶
- one anonymized drawing file, preferably the sheet metal example
- Avilus drawing standard/checklist
- bend table or bending-parameter requirements
- material/surface requirement examples
- Teamcenter export of the same part/drawing package
- one example of a drawing that failed review
- NDA and data exchange constraints
Open Questions¶
- Which drawing standard does Avilus want RapidDraft to enforce?
- What does "corresponding to our standard" mean in terms of fields, dimensions, notes, and release states?
- Is Teamcenter already the release authority for these drawings?
- Are sheet metal and composite checks separate reviewers or the same CAD lead?
- Which defect would make Avilus sign an LOI: missing material, missing dimension, wrong bend table, or Teamcenter mismatch?
Sources¶
docs_pivot/_sources/usecases-erpdrawing/meeting minutes June-July.rtf