A working script for the Logic house builder, source inspection, shared Registry replay, product anatomy and factory study. Updated September 5, 2026.
Use the short script for an overview. For a working session, open the five views below, then follow the ten-minute sequence. Keep this guide beside the demo or use Print / save PDF for reading on your phone.
Reference demonstration. Source geometry, synthetic product examples and Registry fixtures are distinct datasets. Public visibility does not mean manufacturer adoption, product certification or engineering approval. This guide does not assert that a particular deployment is live; check the links before the call.
“The idea is pretty simple: we should be able to understand a product, place it in a design, and see what we actually know about the result.
Here’s the house Jason supplied. We can pull out one wall or floor component, see its framing and drawings, and put it back in context. The source has been organized into 85 inferred geometry families and 110 placements. Those are geometry groupings, not yet an approved product catalog.
In the builder, I can move, rotate, duplicate or swap fixed-size components in plan and see the same change in 3D. I can also place a roof component on a tilted study plane. That changes its placement, not its design. The product list counts panels and complete components, rather than every stud inside them.
The Registry example answers a different question: can two interfaces use the same exact product data and produce the same scoped result? Here are a matching pair, an incompatible pair and a case where we don’t have enough information. The export keeps the product versions and the check evidence together.
We’ve also made the product anatomy and factory view easier to inspect. You can see the parts, sections and flow, with assumptions labeled. Kyle’s contribution is still pending, so the illustrative CLT example is not being passed off as his product.
What I’d like us to agree on is the first real product set, which connection facts we need, and who reviews those facts before this goes beyond a reference demonstration.”
The times are a suggested pace, not a rigid presentation. Let a useful question replace a click.
Say: “There are three data lanes here: Jason’s supplied geometry, independent product illustrations, and synthetic Registry fixtures. I’ll keep those separate as we go.”
Show: The builder’s starting-assembly selector. Explain that the source house is a working study and its connection state is indeterminate without authoritative interface data.
Open: Source inspection. Search for a stud wall, then select a family. It should isolate one instance. Use Instance to inspect another placement, In house to see its location, and Whole house to return.
Do: Switch Display → Structure. Open Parts, Drawings and Evidence. Show a section or vector drawing.
Say: “We’re inspecting the source, not substituting a generic box. The family identity is inferred. We can review that mapping without changing Jason’s original file.”
Ask: “Does this grouping match how you would actually sell and configure the product?”
Open: House builder. Load 2x6 stud house. Select a wall in plan or in the placed-component list. Use Focus, drag it in plan, rotate it, then Undo. Duplicate or swap a component and show the changed product count.
Do: Select a roof family and a study datum. Set a pitch such as 4 / 12, update the plane, and use Place on selected datum on a study component. Undo when done. Show the plane if it helps explain the placement.
Say: “The plane is an editable study assumption. The panel keeps its source dimensions. Envelope alignment helps with placement but does not validate a connection or design a roof.”
Show: The product rollup and its indeterminate checks. Download the study package; point out the separate draft CTO, assembly GLB and plan SVG outputs.
Ask: “Which edits should be allowed for a customer, and which should trigger a manufacturer review?”
Open: Registry replay. Select Two matching wall edges, then Same-side mating, then One wall, no connection. Read the finding, not just its color.
Do: Expand Exact versions and provenance. Export the matching case as a pinned package. Open it in the Matechi workspace through its file input. Compare the product versions, snapshot digest and receipt digest. A different interface or export time should not silently substitute newer product data.
Say: “Pass means this declared interface check passed. It is not a structural pass. Fail means a known rule was not met. Indeterminate means the required facts or connection are absent. The two interfaces use the same kernel, so this shows shared-kernel replay, not independent-engine certification.”
Ask: “Is this the right minimum evidence to carry between tools?”
Open: Product anatomy. Inspect the SIP opening, roof, floor cartridge, CLT or pod example. The generated library also includes a kitchen-pod bundle.
Do: Compare LOD 0 and LOD 2, show separated layers, use the part selector, then turn off Show labeled illustrative anatomy. Switch between 3D, Plan and Elevation. Try the center section and vector drawing.
Say: “More detail should make the unknowns easier to see, not disguise them. The six generated bundles are independent illustrations. They are not Logic or Freres product declarations. The CLT layup is illustrative and Kyle’s contribution is still pending.”
Ask: “What should be the minimum upload: a model, a drawing, a product sheet, or any one of those with gaps made explicit?”
Open: Matechi factory study. Select station 7 and inspect the measurement gantry. Switch to Plan view, fit the layout, and open Equipment and layout notes.
Show: Named parts, upstream/downstream stations, directional route and footprint findings. Flow animation is optional and is not takt or telemetry.
Say: “This is a synthetic layout study. Equipment is recognizable but symbolic. We preserve the station footprints and report overlaps or route crossings. We have not verified working clearance, egress, transport or a real facility.”
Ask: “Which factory handoff would be useful first: a product count, a station assignment, or an evidence package tied to an order?”
Say: “I’d keep the next step narrow: agree on one product family, its authoritative interface facts and its review owner, then run it through this same loop.”
Confirm: Product mapping, required intake fields, publication owner, the first intended user and what would count as a useful next demonstration. Record unresolved questions rather than filling them with synthetic answers.
| Artifact | What it establishes | What it does not |
|---|---|---|
| Rhino source + derived family GLB | Traceable geometry and source grouping, with a recorded transform | Approved SKU, CIS definition or manufacturing instructions |
| Source-bound study package | Placed families, editable study datums and the source binding | An approved product assembly or engineered roof |
| Pinned Registry package | Exact product/interface versions, snapshot and scoped check receipt | Independent-engine certification or engineering approval |
| Illustrative GLB / SVG / JSON | Readable anatomy with labels and explicit missing declarations | Manufacturer-authored detail or a right to fabricate |
| Factory view | Station footprint geometry, schematic flow and scenario results | Real telemetry, clearance approval or validated production capacity |
The source intake contains 85 inferred geometry families and 110 source placements. The replay check compares the derived family meshes with those source placements. A source match does not validate engineering or product identity.
Rhino source SHA-256:
e2e3aedc36f939d45cda1aff8b59ce5f98cb32778a7a7cd6933a5355205df047Baseline public Registry snapshot digest:
sha256:e0a4f4c1efded5f92969b5fb3f1767e587c203affa767aeb5c0db8d974c85154Read the live package's displayed digest during the demonstration. If the snapshot changes, compare both consumers against the same newly pinned snapshot rather than claiming this baseline is still active.
Consumed formats are frozen for this demonstration at CTO v0.2.0 and CIS v0.1.3. Study, evidence and receipt envelopes are application companions, not extra private CTO/CIS fields.
Still pending: Kyle’s authoritative contribution, connection details and approval. Keep the candidate and illustrative mass-timber examples labeled until that arrives. Industry Registry governance, adoption and final engineering approval are decisions for the accountable parties, not for this app.
A useful ending is one agreed product, one evidence owner and one next review. Everything else can stay in the question list.
This scripted application walkthrough is a fallback for the live demo. It shows source-house editing, scoped Registry outcomes, the same package replayed in Matechi, product anatomy and factory layout. It is not an engineering review or an outside usability interview.
Open the recording · House framing · Individual panel · Factory plan · Matechi replay
