How We Review Assembly Constraints
The verification discipline behind every MateIntent Notebook publication: isolated models, reproducible diagnostics, and honest limits on what a review can conclude.
The Single-Model Paradigm
Every case on this site examines one assembly in isolation. We do not compare product families, configuration branches, or variant trees — the question is always how a single set of mates behaves inside a single mechanism.
This keeps each review focused on the central question of the publication: which component motions the design must allow, and which it must exclude.
Verification Before Publication
No claim of a successfully resolved assembly is published without a reproducible check: degree-of-freedom counts from the solver, a physical drag through the full travel range, a redundancy scan of the mate tree, and a forced deep rebuild.
- Remaining degrees of freedom are counted and compared against stated design intent.
- Diagnostic conclusions are separated from assumptions about why geometry changed.
- Automated tool output is never presented as a substitute for engineering judgement.
Independence and Scope
MateIntent Notebook is an independent publication. Third-party CAD applications discussed here — including SOLIDWORKS — are referenced for educational analysis only, without affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship by their vendors.
Reviews describe diagnostic reasoning, not guaranteed outcomes. A solver state with zero reported errors can still violate physical clearances, slide limits, or fabrication tolerances, and our notes state that limit explicitly wherever it matters.
See the method applied to real cases
Browse the knowledge base or the interactive hinged-arm assembly case on the homepage.