Problem
When the input is a degenerate surface compound (no solids), inspect/measure report alarming-looking metrics with no explanation:
{ "solid_count": 0, "volume": 0.0, "surface_area": -0.0, "dimensions": { "z": 0.0 } }
For invalid solids we now emit edit_risk + validity_errors (#32), and valid-but-odd shapes get a notes entry (e.g. the free-edge / face-orientation clarifications). But the file most in need of a plain-language explanation — "this is a zero-volume surface compound; there is no solid to chamfer/fillet" — gets none.
Surfaced by the #32 friction run on a degenerate fixture.
Suggested direction
Add a notes entry (per the existing notes convention) when solid_count == 0 and/or volume == 0, telling the agent the input has no solid body and normal solid edits don't apply — point at rebuild/loft-from-faces instead.
Acceptance
- A surface-only / zero-solid input gets a clear note explaining the zero metrics.
Problem
When the input is a degenerate surface compound (no solids),
inspect/measurereport alarming-looking metrics with no explanation:{ "solid_count": 0, "volume": 0.0, "surface_area": -0.0, "dimensions": { "z": 0.0 } }For invalid solids we now emit
edit_risk+validity_errors(#32), and valid-but-odd shapes get anotesentry (e.g. the free-edge / face-orientation clarifications). But the file most in need of a plain-language explanation — "this is a zero-volume surface compound; there is no solid to chamfer/fillet" — gets none.Surfaced by the #32 friction run on a degenerate fixture.
Suggested direction
Add a
notesentry (per the existingnotesconvention) whensolid_count == 0and/orvolume == 0, telling the agent the input has no solid body and normal solid edits don't apply — point at rebuild/loft-from-faces instead.Acceptance