Deutsche Aircraft Use Cases¶

Status: Customer evidence Validation status: Deutsche Aircraft-specific pains are customer-described by Jose V. C. and Evgeny; no stress manual, load report, load database export, analysis deck, drawing package, CATIA/3DEXPERIENCE export, SAP handoff example, or secure pilot environment has been seen yet.

This page turns Deutsche Aircraft feedback from Jose V. C. and Evgeny into concrete use cases. There are two separate lanes:

Stress analysis input readiness from Jose: helping stress engineers find, verify, and cite loads, materials, geometry, boundary conditions, requirements, and methods.
Configuration and release readiness from Evgeny: reducing manual drawing/release check cycles across CATIA V5, CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE, SAP ERP, CAD metadata, full-3D source of truth, and possible EPLAN / DOORS / MagicDraw links.

Evidence Boundary¶

Evidence	Source	How to treat it
Jose V. C. is a stress engineer at Deutsche Aircraft	Network wiki meeting note	direct Deutsche Aircraft context
Evgeny should be treated as Deutsche Aircraft context	user clarification, July 5, 2026, plus Evgeny meeting notes	account attribution correction
Stress engineers spend about 50-70% of time preparing analysis input, about 10% on methodology/execution, and about 20-30% on post-processing/reporting	Jose V. C. notes	direct workflow evidence
Stress manuals are missing, outdated, or hard to search; some inherited DonAir manuals were lost	Jose V. C. notes	direct knowledge-management pain
Interface loads are often unavailable in smaller companies or new aircraft programs, while mature organizations have load databases	Jose V. C. notes	direct load-data pain
A report containing correct CAE loads was lost; an analysis was done with wrong loads and the correct report was found later	Jose V. C. notes	strongest concrete failure story
Company laptops do not allow LLM or AI tools because of data security; private phone usage happens informally	Jose V. C. notes	direct deployment constraint
AI help was framed around finding inputs, verifying loads/materials/geometry/requirements, and recommending methodology	Jose V. C. notes	direct product direction
Evgeny's ranked list starts with drawing completeness with manufacturing information	Evgeny meeting notes and use-case scenario source	direct release-readiness evidence
Full 3D as source of truth and CAD metadata from CAD to BOM were listed as priorities	Evgeny meeting notes	direct data-readiness evidence
Possible EPLAN and DOORS to MagicDraw links were mentioned	Evgeny meeting notes	lower-confidence adjacent scope
Technical drawing reviews/checks should reduce check cycles	Evgeny meeting notes	direct workflow value
Tool context: Dassault/3DEXPERIENCE partner, SAP as ERP, drawings in CATIA V5 or CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE	Evgeny meeting notes	direct system context
AI should not amend design decisions; human must remain in the loop; no AI tool qualification exists; about 90% error detection can still be useful as support	Evgeny meeting notes and use-case scenario source	hard product guardrail

Priority Backlog¶

Priority	Use case	Owner signal	Why first
P0	DA-01 Stress Analysis Input Readiness Pack	Jose / Deutsche Aircraft	matches the largest time sink: input preparation
P0	DA-02 Load Provenance And Wrong-Load Prevention	Jose / Deutsche Aircraft	based on the clearest failure story
P0	DA-03 Secure Local Stress Knowledge Assistant	Jose / Deutsche Aircraft	security policy blocks normal LLM use
P0	DA-07 Drawing Completeness With Manufacturing Info	Evgeny / Deutsche Aircraft	ranked first by Evgeny
P0	DA-08 CATIA / 3DEXPERIENCE To SAP Release Readiness	Evgeny / Deutsche Aircraft	direct system context and release-cycle pain
P1	DA-04 Searchable Stress Manual And Method Finder	Jose / Deutsche Aircraft	direct manual/methodology pain
P1	DA-05 Interface Load Retrieval And Approximation Support	Jose / Deutsche Aircraft	high-value but needs careful engineering boundaries
P1	DA-06 Stress Report Assembly Assistant	Jose / Deutsche Aircraft	reporting is 20-30% of work, but likely follows input trust
P1	DA-09 Full 3D Source-Of-Truth Review	Evgeny / Deutsche Aircraft	ranked second; important but needs artifact boundary
P1	DA-10 CAD Metadata To BOM Handoff	Evgeny / Deutsche Aircraft	ranked third; ties CAD and ERP/BOM readiness
P2	DA-11 EPLAN Cross-Domain Release Check	Evgeny / Deutsche Aircraft	mentioned as "maybe"; keep optional
P2	DA-12 DOORS To MagicDraw Traceability Precheck	Evgeny / Deutsche Aircraft	mentioned as "maybe"; likely systems-engineering adjacent

DA-01 Stress Analysis Input Readiness Pack¶

Persona: Stress engineer preparing a structural analysis package.

Trigger: An engineer is about to run or review an analysis and needs to know whether the required inputs are present, current, and traceable.

Current failure mode: The majority of stress-engineering time is spent gathering inputs: loads, materials, geometry, boundary conditions, and requirements. Missing or stale inputs can push the engineer into assumptions or rework before the actual analysis starts.

Required inputs to request from Deutsche Aircraft:

one anonymized stress-analysis request or work package
expected input checklist: loads, material properties, geometry, boundary conditions, requirements, and assumptions
one prior completed analysis package
source documents for loads and materials
examples of acceptable vs unacceptable input provenance

RapidDraft behavior:

Check	Concrete behavior	Example finding
Input completeness	List required inputs and mark present/missing/unknown	"Interface load source missing for bracket interface A."
Source freshness	Compare cited source date/revision against available reports	"Load report Rev B cited, Rev C available in corpus."
Material traceability	Link material properties to approved source	"Material allowables lack source document."
Geometry reference	Confirm analysis geometry points to the intended model/revision	"Analysis deck references geometry export older than drawing revision."
Assumption capture	Surface assumptions that need reviewer approval	"Boundary condition derived from requirement text, not load database."

Output: Input-readiness packet with missing inputs, conflicting sources, assumptions, and source citations.

MVP slice: One stress-analysis work package and one input checklist. The first demo should only flag missing/contradictory evidence; it should not calculate loads.

DA-02 Load Provenance And Wrong-Load Prevention¶

Persona: Stress engineer, analysis checker, or stress lead reviewing whether the correct loads were used.

Trigger: A stress analysis uses loads from reports, databases, requirements, or prior projects, and the reviewer needs confidence that the source is correct.

Current failure mode: Jose described a concrete case where the correct CAE load report was lost, analysis was performed with wrong loads, and the correct report was discovered later.

Required inputs:

one load report or set of load cases
the analysis deck/input file or extracted load table
document repository or folder containing candidate load sources
expected "correct" source for a small example
rules for load-case naming and revision precedence

RapidDraft behavior:

Extract load cases, values, units, and source references from the analysis package.
Search the approved corpus for candidate load reports and load databases.
Compare load IDs, revisions, units, and values where structured enough.
Flag stale, missing, or conflicting load provenance.
Show exact source evidence and keep the stress engineer responsible for acceptance.

Output: Load provenance report with cited source document, revision, extracted load values, mismatch warnings, and reviewer questions.

MVP slice: One load family and one known wrong-load or stale-source example. This is the best first proof if Deutsche Aircraft can share sanitized files.

DA-03 Secure Local Stress Knowledge Assistant¶

Persona: Stress engineer or engineering manager who wants AI support but cannot send aircraft data to external tools.

Trigger: Engineers want to use LLM-style search or reasoning on stress manuals, load reports, and analysis procedures, but company policy blocks normal AI tools on work laptops.

Current failure mode: Jose cannot use LLM tools on the work laptop due to data security. Private phone usage is a workaround, not an approved engineering workflow.

Required inputs:

allowed deployment boundary: local laptop, VDI, on-prem server, or private cloud
data classification rules for stress manuals, reports, and analysis inputs
sample corpus of approved non-sensitive documents
audit/logging and no-training requirements

RapidDraft behavior:

run retrieval and document Q&A inside the approved boundary
cite source documents for every answer
avoid storing customer data in third-party model providers unless explicitly approved
separate document search from final engineering judgment
keep a query and source audit trail for review

Output: Secure stress-knowledge assistant that answers with citations and unknown flags.

MVP slice: Local or customer-controlled RAG over a sanitized stress-manual subset. Do not sell this as a broad chatbot; sell it as a controlled evidence retrieval layer for stress workflows.

DA-04 Searchable Stress Manual And Method Finder¶

Persona: Stress engineer deciding which standard calculation method or template applies.

Trigger: An engineer needs a standard method for a specific stress problem, interface load calculation, or analysis type.

Current failure mode: Manuals are missing, outdated, or difficult to search. Jose mentioned that Embraer maintains a manual for interface loads as a useful benchmark, while inherited manuals in his context can be lost.

Required inputs:

current stress manuals and legacy method documents
document ownership and validity status
examples of queries engineers actually ask
expected method/template for 5-10 benchmark questions

RapidDraft behavior:

search manuals by engineering intent, not only keyword
return applicable method sections with citations
show document status: current, legacy, obsolete, unknown
suggest templates or example workflows when available
ask follow-up questions if the problem definition is underspecified

Output: Method recommendation card with source manual, applicability notes, assumptions, and next engineering action.

MVP slice: A small manual subset and benchmark query set. Avoid claiming the system chooses the final method autonomously.

DA-05 Interface Load Retrieval And Approximation Support¶

Persona: Stress engineer working on a new aircraft program, smaller organization, or new design where interface loads are incomplete.

Trigger: A structural component needs interface loads, but the load database is missing, incomplete, or not accessible.

Current failure mode: Interface loads are easier in mature organizations with comprehensive load databases. In smaller companies or new programs, engineers may refine requirements to approximate or derive what they need.

Required inputs:

prior load reports or load database export
requirement text connected to the interface
geometry/interface definition
known comparable products or components
accepted engineering method for deriving preliminary loads

RapidDraft behavior:

retrieve similar historical interfaces and their load sources
identify missing load definitions and unclear requirement language
propose questions needed to refine the requirement
create a "load unknowns" table instead of inventing values
link any suggested approximation method to an approved manual

Output: Interface-load gap report with historical candidates, missing inputs, and questions for the loads/stress owner.

MVP slice: Retrieval and gap analysis only. Do not auto-generate loads without explicit customer-approved methods.

DA-06 Stress Report Assembly Assistant¶

Persona: Stress engineer or checker preparing a report after analysis.

Trigger: Analysis results exist and the engineer needs to assemble a report that cites inputs, methodology, assumptions, results, and limitations.

Current failure mode: Post-processing and reporting still consume about 20-30% of the workflow. Reporting is only trustworthy if the input provenance and method choice are already clear.

Required inputs:

analysis result exports
report template
input-readiness packet from DA-01
method recommendation/provenance from DA-04
accepted report examples

RapidDraft behavior:

assemble report skeleton sections
pull source citations from input and method packets
collect tables/plots where provided
list assumptions and unresolved input warnings
avoid hiding uncertainties in polished prose

Output: Draft stress report package with traceable inputs, methodology, results placeholders, and open issues.

MVP slice: Report skeleton plus citation assembly, not automated stress sign-off.

DA-07 Drawing Completeness With Manufacturing Info¶

Persona: Configuration manager, release reviewer, drawing checker, or design engineer preparing a drawing for release.

Trigger: A CATIA V5 or CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE drawing is ready for review and needs to carry enough manufacturing information before release.

Current failure mode: Evgeny ranked drawing completeness with manufacturing information as the first use case. Technical drawings go through manual reviews and checks, and the target is reducing check cycles.

Required inputs to request from Deutsche Aircraft:

one anonymized CATIA V5 or 3DEXPERIENCE drawing package
drawing completeness checklist
required manufacturing information fields
examples of common missing manufacturing information
expected review outcome for one passing and one failing drawing

RapidDraft behavior:

Check	Concrete behavior	Example finding
Manufacturing info	Check required manufacturing notes, dimensions, material/process fields, and special instructions	"Manufacturing note required by checklist is missing."
Drawing completeness	Mark required drawing fields as present/missing/unknown	"Required tolerance/specification field is blank."
Evidence pointer	Link each finding to sheet, zone, note, field, or checklist item	"Sheet 2, zone B4."
Human approval	Present findings as review support only	"Reviewer must confirm before release."

Output: Drawing completeness report with checklist mapping, evidence links, and reviewer actions.

MVP slice: One drawing and one checklist. Use Evgeny's guardrail: support the human review; do not amend design decisions.

DA-08 CATIA / 3DEXPERIENCE To SAP Release Readiness¶

Persona: Configuration manager or release coordinator moving engineering artifacts toward SAP-controlled release.

Trigger: A drawing, CAD model, BOM, or metadata package needs to move from CATIA / 3DEXPERIENCE context into SAP ERP or a release workflow.

Current failure mode: The notes identify Dassault/3DEXPERIENCE, CATIA V5 or CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE drawings, and SAP as ERP. Manual release checks can create repeated check cycles when data is incomplete or inconsistent.

Required inputs:

CATIA / 3DEXPERIENCE drawing or export
SAP-relevant BOM or metadata export
release checklist and mandatory SAP fields
sample mismatch or rejected package
lifecycle/revision conventions

RapidDraft behavior:

Compare drawing metadata against BOM/SAP-relevant fields.
Check required release fields are complete.
Flag revision, lifecycle, or part-number inconsistencies.
Identify missing files or supporting artifacts.
Export a release-readiness summary for human approval.

Output: CATIA/3DEXPERIENCE-to-SAP readiness report with blockers, warnings, and unknowns.

MVP slice: Export-based comparison first. No SAP writeback, no release approval automation.

DA-09 Full 3D Source-Of-Truth Review¶

Persona: Configuration manager, CAD lead, or release reviewer trying to keep 3D model, drawing, and downstream artifacts aligned.

Trigger: The team wants full 3D to act as the source of truth, but drawings and downstream metadata still need review.

Current failure mode: Evgeny ranked "Full 3D, source of truth" second. This suggests release checks should not rely only on drawing PDFs if the authoritative model or 3D definition carries required information.

Required inputs:

3D model or neutral export
drawing derived from the model
metadata fields extracted from CAD
rules for which information should be controlled by the 3D model vs drawing
one known mismatch example

RapidDraft behavior:

compare drawing title-block and metadata fields to the 3D/CAD source
identify missing or divergent model-derived information
show whether the drawing is consistent with the current model revision
mark unclear model-vs-drawing authority as an open question

Output: 3D/drawing source-of-truth alignment report.

MVP slice: Metadata and revision alignment first. Avoid claiming full MBD validation without Deutsche Aircraft rules and artifacts.

DA-10 CAD Metadata To BOM Handoff¶

Persona: Configuration manager, BOM owner, CAD/PDM owner, or release coordinator.

Trigger: CAD metadata must become or update BOM/release data.

Current failure mode: Evgeny ranked CAD metadata from CAD to BOM third. If CAD metadata, BOM fields, and SAP-relevant data diverge, release checks become manual and repetitive.

Required inputs:

CAD metadata export
BOM export
SAP or release-field template
mapping rules from CAD fields to BOM fields
examples of accepted metadata values

RapidDraft behavior:

extract CAD metadata fields
map them to BOM/release fields
flag blanks, conflicts, naming inconsistencies, and unmapped fields
suggest normalized values only when based on existing mappings
keep final acceptance with the configuration manager

Output: CAD-to-BOM metadata handoff report.

MVP slice: Read-only comparison and suggestions. No automatic BOM or SAP edits.

DA-11 EPLAN Cross-Domain Release Check¶

Persona: Configuration manager or cross-domain reviewer coordinating mechanical/electrical release evidence.

Trigger: Mechanical release artifacts need to be checked against electrical artifacts or EPLAN-derived information.

Current failure mode: Evgeny listed EPLAN as "maybe", so this should stay optional until a specific artifact and defect are captured.

Required inputs:

EPLAN export or electrical BOM
mechanical BOM/drawing metadata
cross-domain mapping rules
one known mechanical/electrical inconsistency

RapidDraft behavior:

compare shared part numbers, component names, revision fields, and required references
flag missing cross-domain evidence
present unresolved links as review questions

Output: Mechanical/electrical release consistency checklist.

MVP slice: Only after Deutsche Aircraft provides a concrete EPLAN-linked review problem.

DA-12 DOORS To MagicDraw Traceability Precheck¶

Persona: Systems engineering or configuration-management reviewer.

Trigger: Requirements and architecture artifacts need traceability before a release or review gate.

Current failure mode: Evgeny listed DOORS to MagicDraw as "maybe". This is likely valuable but sits farther from the first drawing/SAP proof.

Required inputs:

DOORS requirement export
MagicDraw model/export
traceability expectations for a small subset
examples of missing or stale links

RapidDraft behavior:

list requirements and linked architecture/model artifacts
flag missing, stale, or ambiguous trace links
separate "no evidence found" from "non-compliant"
produce reviewer questions instead of final systems-engineering decisions

Output: DOORS/MagicDraw traceability gap table.

MVP slice: P2 only. Keep drawing completeness and CATIA/SAP readiness ahead of this until Deutsche Aircraft says otherwise.

Account Guardrails From Evgeny¶

Evgeny's notes change how the Deutsche Aircraft page should be framed:

AI should not amend or make a design decision.
Human review must stay in the loop.
There is no qualified AI tool in this workflow yet.
Around 90% drawing-error detection can still be useful if it is positioned as support, not release authority.
The same pattern can later apply to process artifacts and planning artifacts, but the first proof should stay close to drawings or release data.

Recommended Demo Sequence¶

If the champion is Evgeny/configuration: start with DA-07 Drawing Completeness With Manufacturing Info on one CATIA / 3DEXPERIENCE drawing and checklist.
Add DA-08 CATIA / 3DEXPERIENCE To SAP Release Readiness once BOM/SAP metadata exports are available.
Add DA-10 CAD Metadata To BOM Handoff if the release pain is mostly field mapping and metadata cleanup.
If the champion is Jose/stress: start with DA-02 Load Provenance And Wrong-Load Prevention if a sanitized wrong-load story can be shared.
If stress data sharing is hard, start with DA-03 Secure Local Stress Knowledge Assistant on non-sensitive manuals to prove the deployment boundary.
Treat DA-05 Interface Load Retrieval, DA-11 EPLAN, and DA-12 DOORS/MagicDraw as second-wave scope because the false-positive and integration risks are higher.

Validation Assets To Ask For¶

Evgeny / configuration lane:

one anonymized CATIA V5 or CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE drawing package
drawing completeness checklist with manufacturing-information requirements
SAP/BOM metadata export for the same item
one example of a drawing package that required repeated check cycles
mapping rules for CAD metadata to BOM fields
one accepted release-readiness report or checklist format

Jose / stress lane:

one anonymized load-report mismatch or stale-load example
one stress-analysis input checklist
one sanitized load report and corresponding analysis input table
one manual or method document subset
5-10 method-search benchmark questions and expected answers
deployment constraints for local/on-prem/private inference
one completed stress report template

Open Questions¶

Are Evgeny and Jose connected to the same program, or should their lanes be treated as separate Deutsche Aircraft entry points?
Which first Deutsche Aircraft buyer is more reachable: configuration management/release or stress engineering/tools?
Does Evgeny own the CATIA/3DEXPERIENCE to SAP release check, or is he a stakeholder in a wider configuration process?
Is the buyer the stress lead, methods/tools group, PLM/knowledge-management owner, IT/security owner, or program engineering manager?
Are stress manuals in PDF, Word, SharePoint, Teamcenter, Polarion, file shares, or a specialized system?
Are load reports structured enough to compare values, units, and load IDs reliably?
What is the acceptable first workflow: drawing completeness, SAP release readiness, document retrieval, input completeness, load provenance, or report assembly?
Can Deutsche Aircraft share sanitized stress data, or does the first proof need to run on-prem from day one?
Which mistake has higher urgency: wrong loads, missing interface loads, outdated method, time lost searching, repeated drawing check cycles, or incomplete manufacturing information?

Sources¶

docs_network/04_Meetings/survey_and_research_jose_vc.md
docs_network/03_Companies/OneNote_Company_and_People_Entity_Index.md
docs_network/02_People/index.md
docs_pivot/_sources/usecases-erpdrawing/meeting minutes June-July.rtf
docs_pivot/_sources/usecases-erpdrawing/rapiddraft-usecases-scenarios.md
docs/06_Infrastructure_Research/CAE_Knowledge_Base/Local_RAG_Guide.md