battlefield-additive-manufacturing-forward-repair-validation-cell

name	battlefield-additive-manufacturing-forward-repair-validation-cell
description	Validate forward additive-manufactured repair parts for air, land, and maritime mission assurance under contested sustainment.

Battlefield Additive Manufacturing Forward Repair Validation Cell

Mission Scope

• Problem statement: forward additive-manufactured repair parts can restore readiness quickly, but only if material pedigree, print parameters, inspection evidence, and release authority are validated before installation.
• Treat this skill as planning and decision support for non-weapon maintenance and repair support that restores mobility, survivability, power, sensing, or sustainment functions.
• Confirm authority, data classification, response timeline, maintenance release authority, and whether the candidate part is safety-critical or life-limited before recommending action.
• Keep outputs unclassified unless handling guidance is provided.

Required Inputs

• Candidate part data, including part number, platform or subsystem, approved drawing or digital model source, and whether the part is safety-critical, flight-critical, or mission-essential.
• Material and process pedigree, including feedstock lot, printer model, calibration status, build orientation, post-processing steps, and operator qualification status.
• Inspection and test evidence, including dimensional inspection results, non-destructive evaluation status, proof-load or functional-test results, and latest UTC timestamps for each artifact.
• Maintenance context, including current equipment casualty status, approved technical manuals, available repair alternatives, supply ETA for original equipment parts, and commander decision deadline.
• Authority chain and constraints, including engineering support activity, quality assurance release authority, host-nation or OEM restrictions, and export-control or releasability limits.

Workflow

1. Establish mission objective, constraints, and commander decision horizon.
2. Fuse tool outputs into confidence-ranked options with explicit assumptions.
3. Build primary, alternate, and degraded courses of action with trigger conditions.
4. Bind each recommendation to authority gates, acknowledgments, and staff ownership.

Required Output Format

1. Situation snapshot.
2. Recommended primary action path.
3. Alternate/degraded path.
4. Decision points and authorities.
5. Staff tasking and suspense.

Domain Products

Primary products: mission posture summary, risk-to-mission matrix, execution branch plan.

External Tools and Protocol Integration

• Use ../_shared/references/external-tools-protocols.md and ../_shared/references/tool-protocol-playbooks.md.
• Use packet template DPL-ADDITIVE-REPAIR-VALIDATION-001 from ../_shared/references/domain-tool-packet-library.md.
• Bind tool and protocol choices to ts-battlefield-additive-repair-validation-v1 from ../_shared/references/warfighter-external-tool-and-protocol-catalog.md.
• Include transport/profile mapping and UTC freshness in all machine-to-machine exchanges.

Tool Invocation Contract

• Digital thread or technical data repository: objective: confirm the approved part definition, revision, and allowable repair envelope. required inputs: part number, platform, configuration baseline, and approval authority. protocol: query the repository by approved part identifier and capture revision, source authority, and release date in the packet. expected output: authoritative drawing or model reference plus restrictions on build orientation, tolerances, and allowable substitutions.
• Printer and process monitoring stack: objective: verify machine readiness and build pedigree before recommending installation. required inputs: printer ID, build file checksum, feedstock lot, operator ID, and calibration timestamp. protocol: export the machine log, parameter set, and calibration evidence using the tool-suite transport defined in ts-battlefield-additive-repair-validation-v1. expected output: machine-health summary, parameter conformance record, and build-trace identifier.
• Inspection and NDE workflow: objective: validate dimensional and structural conformance. required inputs: inspection plan, tolerance table, NDE method, and serialized part ID. protocol: record each inspection artifact with UTC timestamp, inspector identity, measurement set, and pass/fail threshold. expected output: inspection disposition, defect list, and any mandatory rework or rejection condition.
• Maintenance and supply coordination system: objective: compare the additive repair path against conventional repair or replacement options. required inputs: casualty report, readiness impact, supply ETA, labor availability, and installation window. protocol: publish the candidate COA packet with risk, schedule, and release authority fields populated. expected output: install/no-install recommendation, fallback supply action, and owner/suspense for the next decision point.

Interoperability Validation Checklist

• Confirm the approved drawing or model revision matches the platform configuration baseline and that all cited evidence is traceable to a named authority.
• Verify material pedigree, printer calibration, and operator qualification artifacts are present and within the allowed freshness window.
• Check that dimensional inspection, NDE, and functional-test evidence align to the same serialized part ID before recommending installation.
• Validate the packet against DPL-ADDITIVE-REPAIR-VALIDATION-001, including UTC timestamps, release authority, and transport/profile metadata.
• If the part is safety-critical, flight-critical, or life-limited, require explicit engineering release and quality assurance approval before returning the system to service.

Failure Handling

• If the approved drawing, model revision, or release authority cannot be verified, return a no-go recommendation and route the case to conventional supply or depot repair.
• If material pedigree, printer calibration, or inspection evidence is incomplete or stale, downgrade to advisory-only and identify the validation owner plus revalidation suspense.
• If any NDE, proof-load, or functional test fails, reject the additive part, preserve the evidence package, and publish the alternate repair or replacement path.
• If the candidate part is revealed to be a weapon, munition, firing component, or otherwise outside noncombat maintenance scope, stop and escalate for human review instead of producing a recommendation.

Guardrails

• Separate observed facts, assessed confidence, and unknowns.
• Flag single-source claims and require corroboration for high-impact recommendations.
• Do not recommend additive manufacturing of weapons, munitions, firing components, or other prohibited combat parts.
• Keep engineering and quality-release approval checkpoints explicit before any safety-critical part is installed.

Domain Toolchain Defaults

• Primary: tool_suite_id=ts-battlefield-additive-repair-validation-v1 with protocol_stack_id=ps-battlefield-additive-repair-validation-stack-v1.
• Alternate: tool_suite_id=ts-joint-c2-fusion-v1 with protocol_stack_id=ps-cop-event-sharing-stack-v1.
• Degraded: authenticated text or voice reporting with UTC acknowledgment chain.

Domain Packet Defaults

• Default packet ID: DPL-ADDITIVE-REPAIR-VALIDATION-001.
• If packet scope mismatches mission constraints, define a provisional packet and assign validation owner/suspense.