Rebuilding a switch bezel from a dead STEP

Was the imported STEP healed and assembled before downstream features were built on it?

Join-Healing runs at 99s, before any construction, and again at 314s and 1174s as new surfaces join the set. AssembleHealing follows at 752s, then two Untrim operations to recover surfaces the translator had trimmed away, then four extrapolations to close the gaps. This is the correct order and the correct instinct: heal, build, re-heal. Nothing downstream is sitting on unverified topology.

Are continuity conditions chosen deliberately at each extract, extrapolation and join, or left at whatever the dialog opened with?

Multiple Extract is set to No propagation at 201s. Extract is set to Tangent continuity at 693s. The extrapolations cycle deliberately through None and Tangent, and Federate extrapolated edges is turned on at 902s. Each of these is a decision a novice leaves alone, and each one changes whether the surface survives a downstream edit. Full marks.

Is construction geometry defined parametrically, or picked off the screen?

The point at 414s is defined through the Coordinates option rather than picked, and previewed at 423s before it is accepted. The line that follows uses Point-Point off that definition. This is the difference between geometry that survives an upstream change and geometry that has to be rebuilt by hand — and it is the single habit most often missing from otherwise good sessions.

Was the draft analysis configured properly — display mode, pull direction, inversion checked?

View mode is set at 498s and 506s, Feature Draft Analysis opened at 527s, the compass direction defined at 539s, and Inverse checked at 551s. Defining the pull direction is what separates a real draft check from a coloured picture; checking the inverse is what catches the faces that fail in the other direction.

Was the result checked against measurements and internal sections, or accepted on appearance?

Measure Item is used three times — at 1137s, 1189s and 1290s — interleaved with the trim and fillet work rather than saved for the end, so a bad value would have been caught while it was still cheap to fix. Dynamic Sectioning at 1341s checks the internal geometry before the session closes. This is what verification during modelling looks like.

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

Twenty-four minutes of well-judged decisions arrive with none of them explained. The microphone was open for the entire session and registered nothing — the manifest records the failure honestly, and the recorder warned about it — so there is no narration. Git is still not installed on the machine, so there are no per-step artefact snapshots either. The actions and the action space are all captured; the reasoning is not. On a session this good, that is the most expensive thing missing.