Route Dental CAD Automation Exceptions to the Right Owner

Separate eligibility from review outcome

Eligibility asks whether the exact product route can process the intended task and inputs. Review asks whether a returned proposal satisfies the current approved brief and receiving requirements. A proposal being generated does not settle an unidentified component, missing relationship or conflicting reference.

Use this routing worksheet for the decision owner and affected dependency, not as a clinical rejection checklist. Define local acceptance criteria with the responsible team before any trial; keep numerical clinical or manufacturing values out of a generic exception template.

Confirm which automation route is being used

3Shape's Dental System support guide describes an integrated Automate route with installed-release, account, package and scan-source prerequisites. It distinguishes those inputs from third-party submissions through the Automate website. The public web-service page separately describes review and possible editing. A website capability is not evidence that the integrated route supports the same configuration.

The support guide contains both release-specific bridge statements and older future-tense wording. Confirm the exact installed indication with the supplier instead of turning those passages into a universal bridge-support rule. This article provides no live entitlement or service-availability verification.

Route by the unresolved decision

Assign an owner who can actually resolve the question. A designer may identify an uncertain surface but cannot invent the missing acquisition record. An administrator may resolve an entitlement issue but cannot approve an aesthetic reference. Keep those responsibilities visible.

Close the exception with evidence

Hypothetical example: an eligible routine training order produces a proposal, but the review brief cites a later reference that was not supplied. The routing note records the missing reference, the affected decision and the sender who must resolve it. The team does not classify the case as an automation quality failure before reviewing the input change.

When the governing source arrives, record whether the proposal was edited, replaced or held and which outputs were reviewed again. Re-entry into automation must follow the confirmed supported route. No example establishes Pristine use of Automate or an unattended production approval process.

Validation and limits

Louie validation pending — unverified locally. Louie must confirm supported indications, source eligibility, settings and review authority for each actual configuration. Authorized tests are required before any Pristine automation route or unattended acceptance is claimed. This worksheet does not configure auto-upload or release designs.

The worksheet is blank and contains no patient data or executable settings. Examples are hypothetical, not tested Pristine cases. Actual prescriptions, applicable manufacturer instructions and responsible approvals govern design and production.