> Describing the part is different from describing how to make the part. The same part might be sent to 3D printing for a non-functional fit prototype, sent to

> Describing the part is different from describing how to make the part. The same part might be sent to 3D printing for a non-functional fit prototype, sent to a prototyping machine shop to make 5 or so units on basic CNC machines that require 3 set-ups to complete it, and after a few design iterations scaled to production on a multi-spindle Swiss-style lathe that drops finished parts into the basket all night long, lights-out. I think you might have a point here, but I'm going to push back on the idea that these three parts are the "same part" because they'll all have wildly different mechanical properties, dimensions, and dimensional consistency. They are not all necessarily interchangeable (although they could be, we'd have to integration-test them in an assembly to find out!). My point is the "abstract part" isn't really a thing, and the real life characteristics of each concrete part are inextricable from the way it's made and what it's made of. I wonder if it would be helpful to force me, the designer, to think about it that way from the start? 3D printing is an odd case that tbh I hadn't really thought of. The things I make are all subtractively manufactured (except for welds which are addictive only in a degenerate sense), and I have no experience with 3D printing.