The decision is system-level precision, not bearing load alone
For a precision spindle, the bearing candidate is only one contributor to the final error budget. Rotor overhang, support spacing, tool interface, thermal growth, residual imbalance, structural flexibility, and the chosen operating-speed corridor all act on the same outcome. A stiffness value can be correct and still be insufficient if its clearance state, frequency basis, damping provenance, or connection to rotor response is unknown.
Evidence that must travel together
- Manufactured geometry and operating clearance
- Direct and cross-coupled K/C coefficients with provenance
- Rotor layout, support span, overhang, and mass properties
- Critical-speed, response, orbit, and stability screening
- Balance state, tolerance basis, and operating envelope
Questions the package must answer
- Is the proposed support architecture physically plausible?
- Does the intended RPM corridor retain adequate separation?
- Which uncertainty consumes the clearance or response margin?
- What remains screening evidence rather than release evidence?
- Which measurement closes the next decision gate?
What AURA produces
AURA does not replace the team's CAE stack, metrology, or prototype testing. It creates a reviewable requirement-to-decision layer that keeps the spindle architecture, coefficient evidence, dynamic screen, validation provenance, and release boundary in the same case record.