ASME Journal of Mechanical Design - T3 prism optimization manuscript

[Copilot]

Issue #75 recovers from agent failures on PR #20 by establishing a clean branch for the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design (JMD) manuscript and addressing the outstanding peer-review feedback.

This branch now merges all commits from PR #20's copilot/create-manuscript-template, bringing in the full manuscript/ (body, SI, build infrastructure), figures, and Edison scripts. ISSUE_75_CONTEXT.md remains as a consolidated working reference for the Issue #19 / PR #20 history.

Round-2 review feedback addressed (comment 4687197892)

• Scope: Title/abstract/intro now consistently frame a planetary-lander/payload energy absorber; the crutch-tip appears only as a future-work item in the Discussion; the abstract uses FDM and omits the crutch-tip motivation.
• Table 1 ↔ parameterization: Deferred to the authoritative T3-prism BO code (bo/t3_prism_sobol_batch.py, PR Add T3-prism (3-strut tensegrity) parametric CAD with Bambu PETG .gcode.3mf slice + re-importable project .3mf (H2D-only, supports enabled, scale 1.5× / cable_d 4.5 mm) + PLA-cables and PLA-struts/TPU-cables MM variants (with modeled-in PLA scaffo... #35) — a 5-variable continuous search space (R, H, twist, a single strut diameter, a single cable diameter) with no categorical variables. Removed the "12→4 orbit axes (1 strut + 3 cable)" claim; Table 1 now matches the code.
• Tendon diameter: Made continuous (3.0–5.5 mm) throughout; removed the categorical {1.2,1.8,2.4,3.0,4.5} mm set.
• BO method: Specified SAASBO (justified for better UQ/predictive accuracy even at ~5 variables), Matérn-5/2 ARD kernel, model-inferred noise, n=9 Sobol initialization followed by T=10 batches × q=5 prints (59 specimens total), fixed-seed policy, and a Zenodo DOI placeholder.
• Novelty: Added a comparison table vs Pajunen 2019 / Intrigila 2022 / Mo 2023 (architecture / fabrication / optimization / ground-truth).
• Language: Softened "ensure cyclic interface durability" pending pull-out/fatigue data; standardized FFF → FDM throughout.

Metal-analog validation plan

Added a Methods subsection plus an SI section describing a validation campaign using hollow aluminum rods and stainless-steel threaded cables. Predicted worst-, mediocre-, and best-performing designs (not only the top performers) will be built and compared against their PLA/TPU equivalents to test rank-order preservation, with a placeholder results table, a rank-correlation figure, and image callouts for the assembled/printed structures (true placeholders for now).

Edison round-3 mock review

Submitted the revised manuscript + SI to Edison ANALYSIS for another round of mock reviewer + editor feedback (task d17a2155, committed under edison-trajectories/mock-jmd-review-3/). Decision: Major Revision, explicitly improved over round 2, with all round-2 items acknowledged resolved; the remaining gate is the intentional placeholder Results/Discussion. Also fixed a budget inconsistency flagged by the reviewers (now n=9 + T=10×q=5 = 59 specimens).

Round-3 review feedback addressed (comment 4699376594)

Implemented the actionable round-3 items (those not requiring real campaign data):

• Citations now real (no longer TODO promises): Added and wired in the primary SAASBO (Eriksson & Jankowiak 2021) and TuRBO (Eriksson et al. 2019) papers, the canonical energy-absorber-metric references (Gibson & Ashby 1997; Avalle, Belingardi & Montanini 2001; Tan et al. 2005; Michailidis et al. 2011), and the SAE J211/1 impact-instrumentation standard for CFC-180 filtering; removed the matching "cite once added to bib" notes.
• BO formulation pre-committed: The primary reported campaign is now stated as a constrained multi-objective problem (maximize SEA and compaction efficiency subject to a peak-force bound fixed from the rigid control), acquisition = qNEHVI, with the hypervolume reference point anchored at the rigid-control point; LogEI single-objective is kept only as a baseline, and the robust/evolution-guided variants are demoted to a contingency.
• SAASBO justified empirically by benchmarking against a standard single-task GP baseline with the same Matérn-5/2 ARD kernel.
• Scope discipline: The Introduction now explicitly places off-axis/combined loading, multi-hit/cyclic durability, and landing-attitude variability out of scope (future work), and scopes the novelty/generality claims to the single-cell prototype space.
• Joint diameter: Added the rationale for fixing d_j at 7.0 mm.
• As-built resolution: New paragraph noting the nominally continuous d_s/d_t are discretized by nozzle/line-width/support, with measured diameters reported and dimensional spread folded into the inferred noise.
• Metal-analog test: Pre-specified the rank-preservation metric as Spearman ρ_s on SEA (peak force secondary) and reframed it as a stringent exploratory transfer test.

Data-dependent items (Results/Discussion, Table 3 print settings, Zenodo DOI) remain honest placeholders.

Edison round-4 mock review

Submitted the further-revised manuscript + SI to Edison ANALYSIS for a fourth round of mock reviewer + editor feedback (task a81649dc, committed with its notebook artifact under edison-trajectories/mock-jmd-review-4/). Decision: Major Revision, "closer to publishable form than the prior round-3 Major Revision." The editor explicitly confirms all four round-3 citation gaps are closed (SAASBO, TuRBO, SEA/densification metrics, SAE J211/1) and that the constrained multi-objective formulation, empirical SAASBO framing, consistent budget, justified joint diameter, acknowledged diameter discretization, and pre-specified metal-analog rank criterion are resolved. The remaining gate is the inherent placeholder Results/Discussion; the only new reference ask is to integrate the already-flagged tensegrity-AM works (Bauer 2021, Pajunen 2021 EML, Santos 2023, Sabouni-Zawadzka 2024) once verified.

Round-4 review feedback addressed (comment 4700329518)

Integrated the already-flagged tensegrity additive-manufacturing literature — the only non-data reference ask remaining from round 4. Each DOI was verified against Crossref before citing, and the prior \todo{} placeholder note was replaced with measured prose positioning this work against the printed-tensegrity literature in the multi-material / tensegrity-architecture background. References added to manuscript/references.bib and wired into manuscript-body.tex:

• Bauer et al. 2021 (Adv. Mater. 33(10):2005647, 10.1002/adma.202005647)
• Pajunen et al. 2021 (Extreme Mech. Lett. 44:101236, 10.1016/j.eml.2021.101236)
• Sabouni-Zawadzka et al. 2024 (Arch. Civ. Eng. 70(2):343–357, 10.24425/ace.2024.150987)
• Almeida et al. 2025 (Int. J. Solids Struct. 322:113590, 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2025.113590)
• Davami et al. 2025 (Int. J. Impact Eng. 198:105208, 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.105208)
• Wang et al. 2026 (Addit. Manuf. 118:105107, 10.1016/j.addma.2026.105107)

The three "verify-then-cite" extras (Almeida, Davami, Wang) all verified, so they were folded in as the closest dynamic/impact and integrated-fabrication tensegrity-AM works. Santos 2023 (10.1002/adma.202300639) was already cited from an earlier round.

Edison round-5 mock review

Submitted the revised manuscript + SI to Edison ANALYSIS for a fifth round of mock reviewer + editor feedback (task e4c536b4, committed with its notebook artifact under edison-trajectories/mock-jmd-review-5/). Decision: Major Revision, "a meaningful improvement over the round-4 submission … closer to acceptance." The Associate Editor explicitly states the round-4 tensegrity-AM reference ask is now resolved and that all prior bibliographic gaps are closed (SAASBO, TuRBO, SEA/densification metrics, SAE J211/1, plus this tensegrity-AM set), and Reviewer #3 confirms the new references are used appropriately (architecture-class evidence, not proof of the specific PLA/TPU process or internal-anchor joint). The remaining gate is the inherent placeholder Results/Discussion, synthetic example figures, and TBD process/test parameters; the only non-data suggestions are optional/strengthening (justify the homoscedastic inferred-noise choice, rename the novelty table, optionally one more transmitted-force→absorber-design citation).

Build

Rebuilt all PDFs (manuscript, supplementary, todos, and a latexdiff diff against the pre-session baseline) and recompiled the fabrication-workflow figure. Direct download links for co-author review were posted in the PR comment reply.

[sgbaird]

@Jeffrayhill1 and @me-madsen could you review the latest version? I'll include a direct link shortly

[sgbaird]

@copilot where's the manuscript? Did you actually pull in / copy all of the commits from #20 into this new branch?

@copilot

Scope drift — title/abstract/intro frame a general energy absorber while crutch-tip only appears in Discussion. Pick one frame up front.

Crutch tip only in discussion about future work. Planetary lander as a motivating use case

Table 1 ↔ D3 parameterization inconsistency — text says D3 collapses 12 diameter axes to 4 orbit axes (1 strut + 3 cable), but Table 1 lists only one d_s and one d_t.

Defer to whatever actually is written into the BO code from the T3 prism PR #35. Let me know what the outcome is in your comment reply

Tendon-diameter conflict — categorical {1.2, 1.8, 2.4, 3.0, 4.5} mm vs Table 1's continuous 3.0–5.5 mm; the BO search space isn't yet well-defined.

Should be continuous. Make consistent. Double check the BO script.

BO method under-specified for reproducibility — kernel/ARD, transforms, noise, batch q, budget T, stopping rule, seed policy, and the exact Ax categorical/hierarchical encoding; also justify SAASBO for a ~5–6-var initial space.

I didn't think we had any categorical variables with just the T3 prism?

SAASBO still because it still tends to do better with uncertainty quantification and prediction accuracy even if it's not dozens of variables.

It's ARD, model-inferred noise, let's say 10 batches of 5 prints. Put placeholders for Zenodo version of GitHub repo.

Novelty vs Pajunen 2019 / Intrigila 2022 / Mo 2023 — asserted, not demonstrated; add a comparison table.

Make this table.

Soften "ensure cyclic interface durability" until pull-out/fatigue data exist; standardize FDM vs FFF; abstract is ~147 words (\u003C150–200 target) and omits the crutch-tip motivation.

Use FDM throughout. Omit crutch tip motivation from abstract.

---

For the validation structures that we'll do at the end, there are some updates based on discussion today:

• we will use hollow aluminum rods and stainless steel threaded cables
• we will not just do the top-performing candidates, but instead select a few that are predicted to be worst performing, a few that are mediocre, and a few that are best performing. We will compare these with the PLA/TPU equivalents to see if they follow the same rank ordering in terms of performance. Make sure this placeholder data is represented in tabular or graphical form in some part of the manuscript. It should also have callouts with images of the actual assembled/printed structures (these can remain true placeholders, since we don't have these yet).

---

When done, upload to edison analysis for another round of mock reviewer & editor feedback, fetch, then report back. Make sure to include a direct download hyperlink to the manuscript and SI (not sure if you've generated an SI yet) for @Jeffrayhill1 and @me-madsen to review, directly in your comment reply.

[Copilot]

@copilot where's the manuscript? Did you actually pull in / copy all of the commits from #20 into this new branch?

@copilot
...

Manuscript pulled in + round-2 feedback addressed + round-3 Edison review back

Yes — the manuscript is now here. The earlier session had only created a context doc; this branch now merges all 43 commits from PR #20's copilot/create-manuscript-template (the full manuscript/, SI, figures, and build scripts). Direct downloads (commit 2401847):

• 📄 Manuscript: manuscript.pdf (9 pp, clean reader copy)
• 📝 Review copy w/ margin TODOs: manuscript-todos.pdf
• 📎 Supplementary Information: supplementary.pdf (now includes the Metal-Analog Validation Plan)
• 🔍 Change diff vs. the PR Populate ASME Journal of Mechanical Design manuscript draft from repo context, with todonotes toggle, consolidated bibliography, Edison mock peer review, first-pass blocker fixes, cross-PR planned-methods refresh, a master synthesized bibliography, rea... #20 baseline: manuscript-diff.pdf (latexdiff)

@Jeffrayhill1 @me-madsen — the first two links above are the ones to review.

Table 1 ↔ BO parameterization — outcome (you asked me to defer to the T3-prism BO code)

I pulled bo/t3_prism_sobol_batch.py from PR #35. The authoritative search space is 5 continuous variables, no categoricals:

Variable	Range
Circumradius R	25–40 mm
Height H	60–110 mm
Twist	40–80°
Strut diameter d_s (single)	6.0–12.0 mm
Cable/tendon diameter d_t (single)	3.0–5.5 mm

So: one strut diameter + one cable diameter (not "1 strut + 3 cable"), and cable diameter is continuous, not categorical. I removed the "12 diameter axes → 4 orbit axes" text and the categorical {1.2,1.8,2.4,3.0,4.5} mm set; Table 1 now matches the code exactly. And you're right — there are no categorical variables for the T3 prism.

The 6 items + new validation requirements

1. Scope — title/abstract/intro now consistently frame a planetary-lander/payload energy absorber; crutch-tip relocated to future-work only; abstract omits it (and uses FDM).
2. Table 1 ↔ D3 — fixed per above.
3. Tendon diameter — now continuous 3.0–5.5 mm everywhere.
4. BO method — SAASBO retained (justified: better UQ/predictive accuracy even at ~5 vars), Matérn-5/2 ARD, model-inferred noise, n=9 Sobol init then T=10 batches × q=5 prints, fixed-seed policy, Zenodo DOI placeholder.
5. Novelty — added a comparison table vs Pajunen 2019 / Intrigila 2022 / Mo 2023 (architecture / fabrication / optimization / ground-truth).
6. Language — softened "ensure cyclic interface durability" → to be verified by pull-out/fatigue testing; FFF → FDM throughout.

Validation structures (today's update): new Methods subsection + SI section using hollow aluminum rods + stainless-steel threaded cables, selecting predicted worst / mediocre / best designs (not just top performers) and comparing rank-ordering against the PLA/TPU equivalents — with a placeholder results table, a rank-correlation figure, and image callouts for the assembled/printed structures (true placeholders for now).

Edison round-3 mock review (ANALYSIS task d17a2155)

Submitted the revised draft + SI for another full reviewer + editor panel. Decision: Major Revision — explicitly "better than the round-2 version and moving in the right direction." All round-2 scope/parameterization/BO/novelty/language items were acknowledged as resolved. Full trajectory committed at edison-trajectories/mock-jmd-review-3/.

The remaining gate is inherent to the planned-methods stage — placeholder Results/Discussion and synthetic example figures. One concrete inconsistency they flagged I already fixed: the specimen-budget math now reads n=9 + T=10×q=5 = 59 specimens (was ambiguously "50 total"). Other actionable asks for when real data arrives: pre-commit to single- vs. constrained-multi-objective + acquisition/reference-point, remove print/test TBDs, add the primary SAASBO citation + canonical SEA/densification/CFC-180 references, and add initial pull-out/repeatability data for the internal-anchor joint before any fatigue claim.

Want me to start knocking down that citation list (SAASBO, TuRBO, SEA/densification metrics, SAE J211) next?

[sgbaird]

@copilot implement the feedback that you can. Send back to Edison analysis with all relevant files uploaded, fetch artifacts and report back.

[Copilot]

@copilot implement the feedback that you can. Send back to Edison analysis with all relevant files uploaded, fetch artifacts and report back.

Round-3 feedback implemented + round-4 Edison review back

Implemented the actionable round-3 items, rebuilt all PDFs, and ran a round-4 Edison ANALYSIS mock review. Direct downloads (commit 1cd90cd):

• 📄 Manuscript: manuscript.pdf (clean reader copy)
• 📝 Review copy w/ margin TODOs: manuscript-todos.pdf
• 📎 Supplementary Information: supplementary.pdf
• 🔍 Change diff vs. pre-session baseline: manuscript-diff.pdf (latexdiff)

@Jeffrayhill1 @me-madsen — the first and third links are the ones to review.

What I changed this round

• Citations now real (no longer TODO promises). Added and wired in the primary SAASBO (Eriksson & Jankowiak 2021) and TuRBO (Eriksson et al. 2019) papers, the canonical energy-absorber-metric references (Gibson & Ashby 1997; Avalle, Belingardi & Montanini 2001; Tan et al. 2005; Michailidis et al. 2011), and the SAE J211/1 impact-instrumentation standard for the CFC-180 filtering. The matching "cite once added to bib" notes were removed.
• BO formulation pre-committed. The primary reported campaign is now stated as a constrained multi-objective problem (maximize SEA and compaction efficiency subject to F_max ≤ F*, with F* fixed from the rigid control), acquisition = qNEHVI, hypervolume reference point anchored at the rigid-control (SEA, η_c) pair. LogEI single-objective is kept only as a baseline, and the robust / evolution-guided variants are explicitly demoted to a contingency — addressing the "toolkit inventory" concern.
• SAASBO justified empirically by benchmarking against a standard single-task GP baseline with the same Matérn-5/2 ARD kernel, rather than just asserting better UQ.
• Scope discipline: the Introduction now explicitly places off-axis/combined loading, multi-hit/cyclic durability, and landing-attitude variability out of scope (future work), and scopes the novelty/generality claims to the single-cell prototype space.
• Joint diameter: added the rationale for fixing d_j at 7.0 mm (it sets the strut-end anchor cage; fixing it keeps the anchor geometry constant so the five optimized variables aren't confounded).
• As-built resolution: new paragraph noting the nominally continuous d_s/d_t are discretized by nozzle/line-width/support, with measured diameters reported and dimensional spread folded into the inferred noise.
• Metal-analog test: pre-specified the rank-preservation metric as Spearman ρ_s on SEA (peak force secondary) and reframed it as a stringent exploratory transfer test (deformation modes/compliance/friction/strain-rate all differ between PLA/TPU and Al/SS).

I did not fabricate the still-open items that genuinely need campaign data (Results/Discussion, Table 3 print settings, Zenodo DOI) — those remain honest placeholders.

Edison round-4 mock review (ANALYSIS a81649dc)

Decision: Major Revision, "closer to publishable form than the prior round-3 Major Revision." The Associate Editor explicitly confirms the round-3 gaps are resolved: all four citation gaps closed (SAASBO, TuRBO, SEA/densification metrics, SAE J211/1); the campaign is now "pre-committed as a constrained multi-objective problem rather than an open-ended algorithm inventory"; SAASBO is "framed as an empirical benchmark question rather than an assertion"; the budget is internally consistent; the fixed joint diameter is justified; the diameter discretization is acknowledged; and the metal comparison is "reframed more appropriately as an exploratory transfer test with a pre-specified rank-based criterion." Full trajectory at edison-trajectories/mock-jmd-review-4/ (review + notebook artifact committed).

The remaining gate is the same one inherent to the planned-methods stage: the placeholder Results/Discussion and synthetic example figures. The only new reference ask is to integrate the already-flagged tensegrity-AM works (Bauer 2021, Pajunen 2021 EML, Santos 2023, Sabouni-Zawadzka 2024) once verified. Want me to knock those down next?

[sgbaird]

@copilot yes

[sgbaird-yolo]

@copilot yes

[Copilot]

@copilot yes

Tensegrity-AM references integrated + round-5 Edison review back

Knocked down the round-4 reference ask and ran a fresh mock review. Direct downloads (commit 5193a48):

• 📄 Manuscript: manuscript.pdf (clean reader copy)
• 📝 Review copy w/ margin TODOs: manuscript-todos.pdf
• 📎 Supplementary Information: supplementary.pdf
• 🔍 Change diff vs. pre-session baseline: manuscript-diff.pdf (latexdiff)

@Jeffrayhill1 @me-madsen — the first and third links are the ones to review.

What I integrated

Verified every DOI against Crossref before citing, then replaced the old \todo{} placeholder with measured prose positioning this work against the printed-tensegrity literature:

Reference	Venue	DOI
Bauer et al. 2021	Adv. Mater. 33(10):2005647	10.1002/adma.202005647
Pajunen et al. 2021	Extreme Mech. Lett. 44:101236	10.1016/j.eml.2021.101236
Sabouni-Zawadzka et al. 2024	Arch. Civ. Eng. 70(2):343–357	10.24425/ace.2024.150987
Almeida et al. 2025	Int. J. Solids Struct. 322:113590	10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2025.113590
Davami et al. 2025	Int. J. Impact Eng. 198:105208	10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.105208
Wang et al. 2026	Addit. Manuf. 118:105107	10.1016/j.addma.2026.105107

The three "verify-then-cite" extras (Almeida, Davami, Wang) all verified, so I folded them in too — they're the closest dynamic/impact and integrated-fabrication tensegrity-AM works. Santos 2023 (10.1002/adma.202300639) was already cited from an earlier round.

Edison round-5 mock review (ANALYSIS e4c536b4)

Decision: Major Revision, "a meaningful improvement over the round-4 submission … closer to acceptance." The Associate Editor explicitly states the round-4 tensegrity-AM reference ask is now resolved and that all prior bibliographic gaps are closed (SAASBO, TuRBO, SEA/densification metrics, SAE J211, plus this tensegrity-AM set). Reviewer #3 (AM/materials) confirms the new references are used appropriately — "as evidence that printed tensegrity-inspired architectures can be made … not as proof of their exact junction/process concept." Full trajectory at edison-trajectories/mock-jmd-review-5/ (review + notebook artifact committed).

The remaining gate is the same one inherent to the planned-methods stage: placeholder Results/Discussion, synthetic example figures, and TBD process/test parameters — all of which need the real campaign data. The only non-data suggestions were optional/strengthening (justify the homoscedastic inferred-noise choice or give an escalation criterion; rename the novelty table; optionally one more transmitted-force→absorber-design citation). Want me to take those optional polish items next?

[sgbaird]

@me-madsen could you make another review of the latest manuscript?