Sweeping and closing a bracket surface

Are the sweep inputs extracted as explicit boundary features, or picked directly off the imported faces?

A geometrical set is created at 59s, and Extracts is invoked before each sweep — 85s, 171s, 281s and 287s. Every sweep therefore runs on a named feature rather than on whatever face happened to be under the cursor. This is the difference between a model that can be repaired when the import is replaced and one that has to be rebuilt.

Are the sweep's driving values set deliberately — typed, or tied to a parameter — rather than nudged until the preview looks right?

The sweep is set to Two limits at 110s, which is the right mode. Then the angle is nudged four times in under two seconds at 124s, and Length 1 is clicked twenty times between 150s and 155s. Another eight clicks follow at 622s. No value is ever typed and nothing is tied to a parameter. The resulting surface may well be correct, but the numbers behind it are the ones the spinner stopped on, and nothing downstream can be driven from them.

Was each construction previewed and inspected before it was committed?

Preview is used at 142s, 201s, 322s, 341s and 626s — before every sweep commits, and again after the Warnings dialog at 201s rather than clicking through it. That is the habit that stops a bad surface entering the tree and having to be unpicked from under everything built on top of it.

Was the surface closed into a solid and the result checked before the session ended?

Close Surface runs at 702s, turning the repaired surface into a solid — the step that makes the work usable downstream and the one most often left for someone else. Dynamic Sectioning follows at 733s and 745s to look inside the result, and a Draft Analysis at 751s checks it before the recording stops at 799s. Three separate checks after the commit, none of them skipped.

When operations threw Update Errors or Warnings, were they resolved or worked around?

Update Errors land at 30s, 583s and 671s, and Warnings at 201s and 627s. None are dismissed and built over — each is followed by a retry or an adjustment, and the session reaches a closed solid at the end, which is the proof they were genuinely resolved. What the capture cannot show is whether each was fixed at its cause or simply routed around.

Is the reasoning behind the decisions recoverable — narration, step marks, notes, artefact snapshots?

Thirteen minutes of narration at a usable level, which is what lifts this from a click stream to something a reviewer can follow. Still no step marks and no artefact snapshots — git is not installed on the capture machine — so the phases of the work have to be inferred from the command sequence rather than read off.