The insert on the screen is the insert on the sheet

21 September 2026. Both of these were found by sitting down and using the selector on a real workspace, not by running its tests. The tests were green over the first one.

The picture said one thing and the sheet said another

• A milling answer names a tool, a turning answer names an insert, and the scene only ever looked for the tool. On a lathe it found neither and quietly fell back to its own stand-in: an eighty degree insert on a wide pocket, beside a specification recommending a fifty five degree one at half the size.
• Nothing looked broken, which is what made it worth fixing first. A reader believes a picture, and a picture that contradicts the sheet beside it is worse than no picture.
• The answer is now read back into the scene in one place, and the line under the tool is a row off the specification word for word. A test walks every operation the selector has and fails if any answer names a tool the scene cannot find.

A cut bigger than the part is now said out loud

• A forty five millimetre slot in stock you said was forty millimetres thick used to be answered as though both figures were true. So did a hole out of the back of a blind part, a finished diameter bigger than the bar it is turned from, a bore that leaves no wall and a pass longer than the bar it runs along.
• Both figures are yours, so the answer names the pair that disagree rather than choosing between them, and it stays a full answer: the tables do not stop working because two numbers contradict each other.
• It is checked only against a size you actually gave. Skip the part step and the stand-in on the screen is a drawing aid, never evidence. A hole drilled through is exempt, because coming out of the far side is the point of it.

Smaller

• The note under the part step said a block was assumed whatever stock form you had picked, in front of a bar.