FY26 Monitoring
FF
Needs review

Manufacturing Process Optimisation

34%

Manufacturing Process Optimisation

FY26 · 16 evidence items · 34% claim readiness

Project summary

FlowForge trialled changes to the production process to reduce material waste during a new production run. The trial involved adjusting machine parameters and material handling sequences.

Technical uncertainty

It was unclear whether adjustments to machine feed rates and material handling sequences could reduce waste yield below the acceptable threshold without introducing defect rates that exceeded quality tolerances.

Working hypothesis

“If feed rate and sequencing parameters were optimised based on sensor data from prior production runs, waste reduction may be achievable without a significant increase in defect rate.”

Claim readiness

0%

Key figures

Est. eligible spend
$68K
Evidence items
16
Confidence
Low-medium
Documentation gaps
2

Evidence gaps

  • Weak technical uncertainty framing
  • Limited experimentation records

Experimentation timeline

  1. Mar 2026

    Process optimisation trial initiated

    Jira

  2. Mar 2026

    Baseline parameter trial completed

    Jira

  3. Apr 2026

    Adjusted sequence trialled — defect spike noted

    Drive

  4. Apr 2026

    Supplier materials review completed

    Xero

Experimentation iterations

1

Reduced feed rate trial — baseline parameters

Outcome

Marginal waste reduction, defect rate unchanged

Evidence

Process waste trial spreadsheet

2

Adjusted material handling sequence

Outcome

Improved waste yield but defect spike in first batch

Evidence

Meeting notes, 2 supplier invoices

Supporting evidence (1 items)

View all evidence

Team involvement

  • Anika PatelManufacturing Lead
    70% R&D time24 signals
  • Liam BrooksProduct Engineer
    22% R&D time14 signals
  • Daniel RossCTO
    12% R&D time8 signals

Eligible cost breakdown

$68K

Total estimated eligible expenditure

Salaries
$28K
low
Prototype materials
$32K
medium
Supplier / subcontractor
$8K
medium

Confidence breakdown

Technical uncertainty clarity38%
Experimentation history32%
Evidence completeness45%
Cost allocation28%
Documentation quality35%
Compliance confidence36%

Missing information

View all gaps
  • Define the specific technical uncertainty that could not be known in advance
  • Document what distinguished this work from routine process improvement
  • Add an experimentation log or structured test records
  • Separate R&D-related activities from BAU production operations
  • Upload supplier invoices and link them to the trial period

Suggested next steps

  • 1Clarify technical uncertainty framing with your Canopy specialist
  • 2Add structured experimentation log for the trial period
  • 3Separate BAU from R&D activities in cost records
  • 4Review with your Canopy specialist before finalising
← Back to dashboardView evidence library

Figures update automatically as new evidence is connected. Your Canopy specialist will confirm all positions during claim preparation.