Trust
Trust and the screening record
An engineer enters an SMA concept and receives a Screening Record: evidence, validation gaps, assumptions, and a design-review agenda.
The Screening Record does not replace qualified engineering judgment, physical testing, regulatory review, flight qualification, medical approval, or certification. The record states what is known, what is assumed, which sources support the recommendation, and which tests remain before commitment.
Method and evidence library
- Screening Records follow one published format.
- Evidence library: Loading size…
- Published reference cases
- For the same inputs and knowledge release, the Screening Record is produced deterministically.
Confidence and disagreements
- Confidence check: Still collecting live outcomes. Scores are for a review discussion. They do not predict success.
- Disagreements in the literature are shown on the assessment.
- An assessment can show what supports the reading, what contradicts it, and what would change it.
Research and university use
University use is arranged with Bacenik. Course files are not posted on this page.
What the pilot record shows
Adoption counters loading.
- Registered users: Loading
- Assessments completed: Loading
- Outcomes recorded from real use: Loading
- Practice exercises: Loading. These are not customer results.
- Reviewer recruitment status loading.
Provider webhook signature checks are implemented. A charged payment observation is still pending before live-money GA claims.
Published failure notes
Published notes record where a screening was wrong, and whether the fix was retested.
- NASA latch expert pilot: screening vs. expert review
Initial screening underestimated latch-specific constraint risks before independent expert review.
Correction status: corrected and retested (2026-10-30). Aerospace latch corpus, rubric-weighted agenda, and IQ disclaimers shipped. Posture gating keeps unknown capability as Engineering review required and extreme unassessed demand as Revise concept. 2026-10-30: industrial wire evaluation addendum recorded; Decision Studio workflow regression and publication-identity retrieval dedupe re-verified.
Reviewers
Ten screening-topic roles are listed. These are role slots, not named signatories, until a signed reviewer contract is on file. No named public signatories are published on this page yet.
- Medical NiTi subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- Aerospace high-temperature SMA subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- iron-based SMA civil subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- Magnetic SMA / robotics subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- additively manufactured NiTi qualification subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- Space latch subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- SMA Scientist subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- Qualification subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- Materials subject-matter expert (Role listed)
- Deployment mechanism subject-matter expert (Role listed)
A written account of how decisions were made is available on request for a procurement review.
Screening Record format
A public industrial wire example shows inputs, demand calculations, assumptions, blockers, validation actions, and the engineering disposition without requiring an account.
Review record for a Decision Studio pilot
A Decision Studio pilot includes a review of how decisions were made, an export of that review, and a Screening Record kept for the organization.
Validation record
- POSTMORTEM-001 latch weakness: corrected posture gating published 2026-10-29. Extreme unassessed demand revises the concept. Ordinary unknown capability requires engineering review. Candidate for controlled testing requires cited stress and stroke that both meet.
- Promise-delivery unit tests lock the industrial baseline versus adverse overload headline divergence.
- Independent physics review signatures remain open until recorded. Screening still supports judgment; it is not certification.
Join the waitlist
Rules for a screening
- How scientific claims are checked
- Who is responsible for a decision
- How expert review is handled
- How source material and content risk are handled
External reviews (including criticism)
Governance review notes record limits and criticism. They are decision-support records, not product certifications or public endorsement badges.
- Method and score explanation: governance note records a conditional endorsement for screening only, not for certification or regulatory submission.
- Record and replay: governance note records suitability for an internal design-review audit, with signed expert review still recommended before external regulatory use.
- Liability and regulatory boundaries: governance note records a defensible decision-support posture when paired with independent engineering review.
Open the published security packageRequest procurement review files
SecurityComplianceStatusPublished referencesEngineering use policy