Geometry is part of manufacturability. It is not the whole problem. A pocket may exist perfectly well in CAD, but whether it can be machined depends on tool access, required tool length, orientation, workholding, available machines and potential collisions.1 Manufacturability analysis research treats these as connected decisions rather than a standalone geometry check: feature accessibility is evaluated relative to the chosen machining orientation and available tooling, and a feature’s interpretation changes once that context is applied.2
The better question is therefore not:
Is this geometry manufacturable?
It is:
Can this part, with these requirements, be produced through a feasible route in this factory?
Tolerance can change that answer. So can the required setup strategy, inspection approach and sequence of operations. Manufacturability is therefore relational: part + requirements + process + factory. A part that is straightforward to make in one factory can be marginal or infeasible in another with a different machine base, tooling and experience — what we call factory fit, a Subduxion term for that relationship rather than an established industry standard.
For manufacturing AI this matters enormously. Feature recognition can tell a system that a pocket, bore or thin wall exists. Manufacturing reasoning must determine what that means for the route used to produce the part in a specific factory.
Notes & references
Gupta, S. K. & Nau, D. S. (1995), “Systematic approach to analysing the manufacturability of machined parts,” Computer-Aided Design, 27(5), 323–342. DOI: 10.1016/0010-4485(95)96797-P
Regli, W. C., Gupta, S. K. & Nau, D. S. (1994), “Feature Recognition for Manufacturability Analysis,” Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference, 93–104. DOI: 10.1115/CIE1994-0391