kerfmaster pin list · UI / workflow decisions
intentWhat we want to build. Never claimed the present, so it cannot be stale — and must never be read as a description of the code.
Content last changed 2026-09-01 — computed from the item itself, not typed.
Jordan, 2026-08-28, answering whether MetaCam warns on a risky manual re-sequence: 'It gives warnings, but operator can choose to dismiss. We envision severity of warning (yellow or red) and if GCodes get generated with a yellow or red warning, it should put it in (warning) in GCode so the laser operator can be aware. Whenever there's a warning in a GCode, there should be an extra callout at the top of the GCode: (Contains X # of warnings).'
The design, in three parts:
(1) Severity tiers, yellow / red, on warnings raised by operator overrides that fight the safety rules (outer before interiors, rapid over a held slug — the nc_audit traffic rule; risky sequences from Manual Sort per metacam-add-toolpath-walkthrough). Warn, never block — aid-the-operator-philosophy: the operator can dismiss any warning.
(2) Dismissed ≠ erased. If the program posts with a yellow or red warning still live, the NC itself carries a (warning) comment at the affected spot, so the LASER OPERATOR — a different person from the programmer (two-step shop flow) — sees it at the machine.
(3) Top-of-file callout: any NC containing warnings opens with (Contains X # of warnings) so nobody has to scan the body to know.
Placement in our pipeline: nc_audit already computes the findings (crossings counted and reported, untabbed over-drop slugs crossed by later rapids, clear-air failures flagged in tight nests); this ruling decides where they SURFACE — as parenthetical comments in the posted NC, not only on the shop sheet. Severity assignment (which findings are yellow vs red) is ours to propose — not yet specified. Interface side (the dismiss flow) stays intent per the phase rule; the NC comment emission is post-stage and buildable when warnings get wired.