Before you approve an engineering change, do you really know its economic impact?
When a BOM changes, the true cost may span obsolete revisions, supplier quotations, one-time tooling and approvals. Explore four frozen research cases. No ERP or PLM integration is claimed.
Static reference output, not a live AI response. Approval references in the text are not independently authenticated.
Is this a real failure mode in your workflow?
We are testing whether an independent, read-only economic evidence check would prevent avoidable commitments across PLM, suppliers and ERP. A short, non-confidential description of a recurring problem is more useful than a generic meeting. We are equally interested if your current tooling already solves this.
Email opens your own mail application; it is not an automatic submission. Please do not send supplier quotes, customer names, or proprietary documents. Privacy information.What the initial model test actually did
Six internally constructed adversarial engineering-change prompts were processed through two real GitHub Actions model runs. A deterministic checker compared required labels, numerical consequences and verbatim evidence against reference answers. The four cases above display fixed reference receipts, not the raw model responses or a deployed service.
What remains unproven
Independently reviewed industrial holdouts, source-of-truth approval verification, privacy/security evaluation, production integrations, repeatable accuracy under distribution shift, operational savings and willingness to pay. This page is exploratory research only and is separate from ZEODEC Economic Consequence Control (ECC).