Box Styles / FEFCO 0430 approved

Dieline: SERVICE (fefco_0430)

Name
Group
Description	A die-cut folder with an integrated lock bottom. Complex blank shape creates secure base and sides from a single piece without gluing.
Usage
Service style
Test notes

Workflow

draft → testing → approved = physical DXF test cut folds correctly. Record the cut in test notes before sign-off.

1 · Test dimensions

L mm W mm D mm Caliper mm Open in calculator ↗

2 · Dieline preview

Service SVG — Pacdora colours (bleed green · cut blue · crease red) for overlay diffs

Loading…

3 · 3D fold check

Open Closed

4 · Files for physical test cut

Cut the DXF for real → record result in test notes → approve.

5 · Reference dielines (calibration corpus)

Upload a Pacdora export or a die maker's DXF/PDF at the CURRENT test dims. The dieline service measures it, compares it against our generator, and stores the report here. A few references per style is plenty — die-maker files outrank Pacdora when rules get tuned; every change still ends in a test cut.

medicine_box_200×127×50_mm.pdf pacdora ✓ LLM done 07 Jul 2026 23:23

# Reference ingestion — medicine_box_200x127x50_mm
Source class: **pacdora** (die_maker outranks pacdora when rules are tuned)

## Reference measurements
```json
{
 "blank_w_mm": 678.0,
 "blank_h_mm": 352.5,
 "panel_scores_x": [
  25.0,
  225.0,
  352.0,
  552.0
 ],
 "panel_widths": [
  200.0,
  127.0,
  200.0
 ],
 "body_scores_y": [
  25.0,
  150.0,
  152.0,
  200.0,
  202.0,
  327.0
 ],
 "cut_arc_radii": {},
 "bleed_offset_mm": 5.0,
 "dim_table": {
  "inside": "198(L) \u00d7 125(W) \u00d7 46.5(H) mm",
  "outside": "201(L) \u00d7 128(W) \u00d7 52.5(H) mm",
  "manufacture": "200(L) \u00d7 127(W) \u00d7 50(H) mm",
  "material": "E-flute",
  "thickness": "1.5 mm",
  "design_area": "678 \u00d7 352.5 mm"
 },
 "notes": [
  "PDF; 152 colour-classified segs (clipped to blank); text keys: ['inside', 'outside', 'manufacture', 'material', 'thickness', 'design_area']"
 ]
}
```

## Comparison vs voom-dieline
| metric | reference | ours | delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| blank_w_mm | 678 | 678 | +0.00 |
| blank_h_mm | 352.5 | 352.5 | +0.00 |
| panel_widths | [200.0, 127.0, 200.0] | [200.0, 127.0, 200.0] | — |
| body_scores_y | [25.0, 150.0, 152.0, 200.0, 202.0, 327.0] | [25.0, 150.0, 152.0, 200.0, 202.0, 328.0] | DIFFERS |
| cut_arc_radii | {} | {13.0: 4, 52.6: 4, 1.5: 4} | DIFFERS |
| bleed_offset_mm | 5 | 5 | +0.00 |

### Rules our generator applied
- panel_widths: corrugated shrink_last: [200.0, 127.0, 200.0, 126.0] — free-edge panel −(2/3)t (measured Pacdora 0430 @t=1.5)
- lid_depth: w−t = 125.50 — tuck crease lands at D+W above the far hinge (measured exact)
- dust_hinge_offset: dust hinges 1.50 inside the lid hinges — flaps fold under the lid board
- tuck_shoulder_slit: 8mm land + r=1.5 drop + 1.5 undercut — tuck inset 11.0/side
- dust_depth: 76.2 = 0.6·w — straight side clears the lid wall by 3.5, far side swept (r≈0.73·chord)
- glue_tab: 25mm on the front panel's outer edge, 15° taper, spans the dust band (d−t)
- crease_vs_knife: creases only where hinges exist; tuck creases start where the shoulder slits end

## LLM analysis (DRAFT — gated by human review + test cut)
### 1. Style Identification (FEFCO/ECMA Code Family)

Based on the measurements, this dieline appears to be a **FEFCO 0201** style box. This is a standard regular slotted container (RSC) with a single corrugated wall and a tuck-in lid.

### 2. Engineering Differences That Matter

- **Panel Widths**: The reference uses `panel_widths = [200.0, 127.0, 200.0]`, while the generator applies a shrink policy to the last panel: `[200.0, 127.0, 200.0, 126.0]`. The reference does not apply this shrinkage.
- **Body Scores Y**: The reference has `body_scores_y = [25.0, 150.0, 152.0, 200.0, 202.0, 327.0]`, while the generator has `[25.0, 150.0, 152.0, 200.0, 202.0, 328.0]`. The difference is in the last score (327.0 vs 328.0).
- **Cut Arc Radii**: The reference has no cut arc radii, while the generator includes `cut_arc_radii = {13.0: 4, 52.6: 4, 1.5: 4}`.
- **Tuck Inset**: The reference does not specify a tuck inset, but the generator applies an 11.0 mm inset per side.

### 3. Concrete Rule-Change Hypotheses

#### Panel Widths
- **Hypothesis**: The die maker prefers no shrinkage on the last panel.
- **Confidence**: High (95%)
- **Test**: Cut a test dieline with `panel_widths = [200.0, 127.0, 200.0]` and compare the fit of the assembled box.

#### Body Scores Y
- **Hypothesis**: The reference's last score at 327.0 mm is intentional.
- **Confidence**: Medium (80%)
- **Test**: Cut a test dieline with `body_scores_y = [25.0, 150.0, 152.0, 200.0, 202.0, 327.0]` and check if the box assembles correctly.

#### Cut Arc Radii
- **Hypothesis**: The reference does not use cut arc radii, which might be a preference or an oversight.
- **Confidence**: Medium (75%)
- **Test**: Cut a test dieline with no cut arc radii and compare the ease of assembly and appearance.

#### Tuck Inset
- **Hypothesis**: The tuck inset is not necessary for this design.
- **Confidence**: Low (60%)
- **Test**: Cut a test dieline without the tuck inset and check if the tuck flap still functions correctly.

### 4. Questions to Ask the Die Maker

1. **Panel Widths**: Do you prefer no shrinkage on the last panel, or is the shrink policy `[200.0, 127.0, 200.0, 126.0]` acceptable?
2. **Body Scores Y**: Is the difference in the last score (327.0 vs 328.0) significant for assembly and fit?
3. **Cut Arc Radii**: Do you have a preference for using cut arc radii, or is it unnecessary for this design?
4. **Tuck Inset**: Is the tuck inset of 11.0 mm per side necessary, or can we omit it without affecting functionality?
5. **General Feedback**: Are there any other specific preferences or adjustments you would recommend based on your experience with similar designs?

_model: qwen2.5:72b_