Arc Skills / Interfaces
Compare supplier and customer interface specifications
An apparent voltage match can disappear when a “typical” figure is mistaken for a guaranteed envelope. Arc Skills takes two revisioned specifications and returns a parameter comparison with conflicts and open proof.
Use this skill
Use Arc Skills to compare my customer and supplier Interface specifications.
Inputs:
- Exact document revisions, product variants and operating conditions
- Customer acceptance envelopes and supplier guaranteed parameters with units
- Connector, polarity, current, timing or data details relevant to the exchange
Return a parameter reconciliation preserving original claims, compatible-range calculations, conflicts and unknowns. Do not treat a typical value as a guarantee or a one-parameter match as complete compatibility.What you provide and what you get
| What you have | How it is used | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| Customer specification | Defines the required acceptance envelope | Requirement-side parameter rows |
| Supplier specification | Provides claimed output under named conditions | Offer-side parameter rows |
| Configuration and units | Makes comparable meanings and variants explicit | Supported match, conflict or unknown status |
Guaranteed range versus typical value
Illustrative engineering example.
The fictional customer input accepts 20–32 V DC. One supplier revision guarantees 24–30 V output; another summary line says only “24 V typical.” The two lines are presented for the same nominal product but carry different evidential weight; the example assumes the guaranteed range is measured at the customer input boundary for that row.
Customer input: 20–32 V DC accepted
Supplier guaranteed output: 24–30 V DC under stated mode
Supplier summary: 24 V typical; no bounds in summary| Parameter / source | Customer need | Supplier statement | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating voltage, guaranteed | Accepts 20–32 V | Guaranteed 24–30 V | Envelope fits: 24 ≥ 20 and 30 ≤ 32 V at stated boundary |
| Operating voltage, typical | Must accept actual operating range | 24 V typical only | Unresolved if this is the sole supplier evidence |
| Polarity and return | Correct polarity and reference required | Not supplied in example | Open; range overlap is insufficient |
| Current capacity | Load demand must be supported | Not supplied in example | Open; request rated output/current evidence |
For the guaranteed-voltage row, containment is the relevant check: the supplier’s entire stated 24–30 V operating range lies inside the customer’s 20–32 V accepted range. This supports that parameter only when mode, configuration and measurement boundary match. A 24 V typical value is one descriptive point, so it cannot establish that the output stays inside the input limits.
The next supplier response should identify output bounds, polarity, return and current under the actual operating mode. The engineer can preserve the favorable voltage result while leaving overall electrical compatibility unresolved; collapsing these into one pass would hide the remaining integration questions.
Compare claims on the same basis
- Pin both documents to revision, variant and operating condition.
- Map parameters by physical meaning, direction and unit before comparing values.
- Calculate interval containment or intersection only for actual guaranteed bounds.
- Record each open parameter with consequence and the exact supplier or customer question.
Questions about this task
Is any overlapping voltage range sufficient?
Only if the full produced range fits the accepted input range under the relevant conditions, or a supported control rule limits operation to the overlap.
Can a typical value be used in a compliance matrix?
It can be cited as a claim, but it should not be treated as a guaranteed minimum or maximum.
Sources and further reading
- NASA Systems Engineering Handbook: product realization: Interface definition, integration sequence and verification context.
- NASA Systems Engineering Handbook: system design processes: Stakeholder expectations, logical decomposition, functional allocation and design decisions.