Preparing an imported bumper for surfacing

Was the imported STEP checked for gaps, tolerance and topology before downstream features were built on it?

Bumper.stp is opened at 23s, framed with Fit All In at 35s, and construction starts at 64s. In between there is a brief look into Sketcher and two orbits. That is a visual inspection, and it is better than nothing — but no healing, no gap check, no tolerance query appears anywhere in the session. Six minutes of surfacing then sits on geometry whose quality was never established. On an imported bumper, that is the assumption most likely to bite.

Is the construction geometry built deliberately and reusably, or picked ad hoc off the screen?

A point is defined at 129s, then a line through Point-Point at 135s, with orbits between the picks to confirm what is being selected rather than trusting the first hit. That is the right order and the right habit. It stops short of full marks because the inputs are still direct picks — nothing here is driven from a parameter or a named reference, so an upstream change would still need a manual repair.

Was the draft analysis configured correctly — pull direction defined, view mode appropriate, live update on?

Feature Draft Analysis is opened at 169s and then actually configured: the display mode is changed at 175s and 176s, the compass direction is set at 185s, and on-the-fly checking is switched on at 195s. Defining the pull direction is the step that separates a real draft check from a coloured picture, and it is the one most often skipped. Full marks — this is the strongest passage in the session.

Is the specification tree organised as the work proceeds, or left to accumulate?

Two Insert Geometrical Set operations, at 107s and 255s, each created before the geometry that goes into it rather than after. Properties is opened repeatedly in between to rename and recolour. This is housekeeping done as a habit rather than as a cleanup, and it is why the session would be readable by someone else a month later.

When the offset produced a multi-result, was it resolved deliberately or clicked through?

The offset at 283s throws a warning at 304s, and rather than accepting whatever came out, the session goes to Multi-Result Management at 337s and makes a selection. That is the correct response and most of the credit. What the capture cannot show is whether the chosen result was the one the design intent called for — the narration stops before this point, so the reasoning behind the pick is not on record.