| Project | Product revision | Sheet revision | Prepared by | Date | Target market / jurisdiction | Decision being prepared | Sheet | Lead | Item ID | Question | Evidence to record | Answer / assumption | Explanation | Status | Evidence / exact revision / URL and date | Owner | Next action | Reviewer / review date | Not-applicable reason | Source guidance URLs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-01 | What performance and safety requirements drive the design? | Intended use, loads, life, environment, interfaces, applicable market rules and acceptance criteria with sources. | R01–R30 define containment, welfare, cleaning and product-specific severe risks | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. R01–R30 define containment, welfare, cleaning and product-specific severe risks | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-02 | Does the process fit material, geometry and volume? | Compare machining, molding, casting, sheet metal, additive or other processes against quantity, finish, lead time, tooling and total cost; identify process-specific risks. | Proposed PP molding and purchased assemblies at 100/year; bridge process before production tool | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. Proposed PP molding and purchased assemblies at 100/year; bridge process before production tool | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-03 | Are features realistic for the chosen process? | For molding: walls, draft, ribs/bosses, undercuts, shrinkage and ejection. For machining: tool access, deep pockets and corner radii. For sheet metal: bends, radii and hole spacing. Obtain the actual supplier’s limits; no universal wall/draft number. | Shell draft, uniform walls, vent steel access and latch undercuts require actual mold review; no geometry approved | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. Shell draft, uniform walls, vent steel access and latch undercuts require actual mold review; no geometry approved | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-04 | Are tolerances functional and inspectable? | Critical dimensions, datums, fits, tolerance stack-ups, finishes and inspection methods. Avoid needless tight tolerances; specify those required for function or safety. | Door fit and grip clearance are proposed; worst-case stack must include shrink, wash aging and wear | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. Door fit and grip clearance are proposed; worst-case stack must include shrink, wash aging and wear | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-05 | Can the parts be assembled consistently? | Reduce unnecessary parts/fasteners, use standard components, access tools, orient and locate parts, prevent wrong assembly, protect wires/seals and test service/disassembly. | Key hinge/latch and cassette orientation; captive parts; process flow and PFMEA linked to controls | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. Key hinge/latch and cassette orientation; captive parts; process flow and PFMEA linked to controls | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-06 | Can material or supplier substitutions change performance? | Material/grade, flame/contact/corrosion requirements, finishes, standard hardware and qualified equivalents. Preserve designer catalog references separately from purchasing sources. | No substitute resin, cell, antenna, propeller or latch sensor without affected requirement regression | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. No substitute resin, cell, antenna, propeller or latch sensor without affected requirement regression | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-07 | Are the files complete and at one revision? | Bill of materials, STEP solid and dimensioned drawings where applicable, materials/finishes, critical characteristics, assembly notes, quantity breaks and inspection/acceptance requirements. A render is not a release package. | BOM, cost, reviews and proposed requirements all C1; no released CAD/drawings exist | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. BOM, cost, reviews and proposed requirements all C1; no released CAD/drawings exist | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
| Drone Trap | C1 | 1 | Sample preparation utility | 2026-10-24 | U.S. adults; Wisconsin illustrative base | Next private feasibility gate | Design for manufacture and assembly | The engineering role | DFM-08 | What did the manufacturer flag, and who accepted changes? | Dated supplier DFM feedback, disposition, affected requirements, cost/tooling impact, owner and verification/retest. Obtain review before releasing revised work. | No manufacturer feedback or accepted changes; RFQ draft lists unanswered capability questions | Scenario proposal; no observations or approvals inferred. No manufacturer feedback or accepted changes; RFQ draft lists unanswered capability questions | estimate — unvalidated | data/products/drone/; concept C1; no external evidence | Jordan Vale | Simulation and specialist review first; target 2027-06-15 | Not reviewed — no review date | Applicable planning question; any unchosen route is explicitly described in answer | protolabs-dfm; nist-development; cpsc-small-business; protolabs-walls |
Sample — fictitious company. All numbers and people are invented scenario assumptions. This is draft concept paperwork; no physical testing, customer evidence, certification, filing or sign-off has occurred.