What was asked
The request was for an assembly jig that would locate a repeated operation and make the operator sequence easier to repeat. The job was therefore about the relationship between the jig, the assembly and the person using it, not about producing a stand-alone plastic form.
The locating and support areas needed to be considered together. A feature that assists placement can become unhelpful if it obstructs the next step in the operation or makes the support geometry hard to use.
The request was framed around a repeatable action, so the relevant questions were practical ones: where the assembly enters the jig, which surfaces establish its position and how the operator completes the sequence without ambiguity.
What the review changed, and why
Review kept the locating and support geometry within one build. That avoided an assembly joint inside the working relationship the jig was intended to hold. The material route was selected for the nature of the tooling task, then the orientation was considered against those working faces.
The result is a record that makes the decision traceable: the aim was a consistent operator sequence, so the build route protected the surfaces and features that establish that sequence.
Keeping that geometry together was a choice about the jig's job, not a claim that every tooling part should be made the same way. The specific assembly and its locating faces set the route.
What we made
We made a PA6-CF assembly jig as a single build. Its case record captures the material and build settings, and notes that the locating and support geometry stayed together rather than being split for convenience.
Photography will be added only if it shows the actual jig in this case. Until then, the record stays text-first so it does not imply a separate specimen represents a delivered tool.
That makes this record useful without decoration. It says what the jig was for, how the review treated its working faces and what form of part was ultimately made.