Describe the observation before naming its cause
Use the general intake triage guide to find missing case context first. This worksheet addresses a localized surface concern after the record and its role have been identified. Write what is visible: an open boundary, isolated spike, doubled surface or abruptly trimmed edge. Do not label an unfamiliar feature as an artifact solely because it looks unusual.
Compare the same area in the source viewer and receiving application when authorized. Record the application, release, display mode and record revision. A screenshot documents a view; it cannot prove the underlying anatomy or establish scan accuracy.
Separate software editing from evidence recovery
exocad documents cropping, dividing and closing holes. Its Close Holes tool creates an artificial surface interpolated from surrounding edges. That is a mesh operation, not a new acquisition of the missing area. Its documentation also distinguishes visible-surface selection from selection through hidden surfaces.
These documented controls are unverified locally. This guide deliberately gives no repair sequence. Preserve an untouched source and label every authorized derivative with its change history. Ask the responsible team whether the affected decision needs replacement evidence before editing.
Use an observation-and-hold worksheet
Record an internal case reference without patient information. Identify the exact surface and held decision so the request is actionable.
| Observation | Question and next action |
|---|---|
| Open area near a decision boundary | Which decision depends on that missing surface? Request a qualified review; do not infer a boundary from a filled hole. |
| Spike or doubled patch | Is it acquisition data, a view issue or a real feature? Preserve source and seek corroborating records. |
| Trimmed peripheral area | What was removed, by whom and in which revision? Request the original if the removed context matters. |
| Edited file only | Where is the untouched source and authorized edit log? Hold dependent work until provenance is clear. |
Hypothetical review exchange
A receiving designer sees an open patch near a region used for a planned design boundary. The intake note records the location and the original filename, holds that boundary decision and asks the acquiring team for review. An edited duplicate is not silently substituted for the source.
If a qualified reviewer authorizes an edit for a limited nonclinical purpose, record that purpose and derivative identity. If new source evidence arrives, identify which dependent decisions must be reviewed again. No example here is an approved Pristine case or measured repair result.
Louie validation and limits
Technical review pending — unverified locally. Louie must reproduce actual editor behavior on authorized data and approve the observation/hold workflow. No repair effectiveness, recovered anatomy, acceptance threshold or Pristine compatibility is established.
The CSV is a blank operational worksheet with no patient data, executable code, configuration pack or clinical/manufacturing values. It does not perform an installation or authorize a production change. Examples in this guide are hypothetical, not measured results or approved Pristine case evidence.
Source notes
Official documentation checked October 6, 2026. Source dates and scope are listed below; a current source check does not establish applicability to every installed release. Original worksheets and decision frameworks require owner/administrator review.
Prepared by Pristine Dental Design · October 6, 2026. Actual prescriptions, applicable manufacturer instructions and responsible design/production approvals govern each case.