How we work
Print to verified program to inspected part.
The expensive part of a small job isn’t the cutting. It’s reading the print, programming it right and proving it. We built that path as software, with four gates that can each refuse the stage before, and we ask buyers to judge us on it.
A job, step by step
One engineer from quote to delivery.
The person who quotes your part programs it, verifies it and signs off its inspection, so the plan and the evidence that it was met never pass through a hand-off.
01
Send your print
Drawing, quantity and need date. You get a quote that names each operation and who performs it, or a straight no-quote with the reason.
02
We engineer the job
Parametric model, operations and CNC program, each gated before the next stage begins.
03
Made at a named shop
Production will run at a qualified subcontract shop named in your quote, under our purchase-order terms, flow-downs and inspection.
04
Inspected and documented
Inspection results and the verification record of the program that cut the part are to ship with the parts. When our own machines run, the machine data from each cut will join that record.
The four gates
Each one can refuse.
A refusal reaches you as a question, not as a quote with a hidden assumption in it.
Geometry derives; it is not drawn by eye
Dimensions are read from the supplied print into a parametric model in which every value traces back to a driving parameter: a measured feature, a declared design choice, or a named handbook fraction. Change the input and the part follows.
Pass interference, wall thickness and lug edge distance check in pure arithmetic before any CAD application opens · Refuse a part that fails its own checks never reaches a CAD seat, a machine, or a quote
The plan must account for the missing material
Machining features are recovered from the solid itself rather than from a parts list, so an operation cannot be omitted just because nobody wrote it down.
Pass total planned removal equals stock volume minus part volume · Refuse anything else. This check has caught a missing operation in our own work.
Exact offsets, and a tool the geometry chooses
Cutter paths are generated to a closed-form offset of the profile rather than a sampled approximation, and posted for the target control.
Pass the cutter is selected from the geometry and the path order is checked as well as its membership · Refuse a tool too large for a fillet, with the reason stated
Run it against the stock before metal moves
Every posted program is executed against a stock model and compared to the intended part.
Pass removed volume reconciles and no rapid crosses material · Refuse gouges into finished geometry and rapids through material. It has caught a gouge that the geometry checks passed.
The chain is proven on a defined family of 3-axis prismatic parts. Where a part falls outside it, the chain refuses rather than approximates, and extending the family is ordinary engineering work. Next is a second, independent check on every program in a commercial machine simulator, with the program refused when the two checks disagree.
Verification
A part can pass every check and still be wrong.
Volume cannot tell a correct feature from an incorrect one that removes the same material, and a toolpath can sit inside the boundary at every sampled point and still gouge. So nothing here is verified by a single instrument.
Two channels, or it refuses
A dimension is derived in closed form and measured off the built solid. Disagreement is a refusal to report, never an average.
A test on every limit
A wall at exactly the minimum is accepted; one micron under it refuses. Off-by-one boundary errors do not survive that.
Inputs it must refuse
Each stage is handed a tool that cannot cut the geometry, stock smaller than the part, a part outside the family. A stage that accepts everything proves nothing.
Measured results
What the checks returned.
Recorded from an actual run of the code, not transcribed. Each module’s source is hashed into the record, so a change after the fact is detectable rather than silent.
closed-form area against the built solid, with fixtures exactly on the wall-thickness and lug-ratio limits44 checks · 5 refusals
planned removal must equal stock minus part; drill-diameter and depth fixtures sit exactly on their limits27 checks · 5 refusals
closed-form cutter offset, plus controls that refuse an impossible tool and catch a 0.05 mm perpendicular deviation3 controls
recorded under Python 3.13.12; each module’s source is hashed into the record71 checks · 13 refusals
A module is recorded as passing only when two signals agree: the process exit status and the module’s own verdict line. A script that prints a failure and exits zero does not count.
For your quality file
What we hold, stated plainly.
If a requirement calls for an accreditation we do not hold, we say so at enquiry rather than at award. You should hear it from us, not during a source inspection.
| Process verification | In place — see the record above |
| Partner-shop certificates | To be checked in the IAQG OASIS registry before quoting |
| Documented QMS | Specified — not yet implemented |
| Third-party quality accreditation | None held |
| Calibrated inspection equipment | Specified — not yet purchased |
Judge us on a part you know.
Send a print you’ve already run, and compare our quote with what you know the job takes.