Injection Mold Design · Before Steel Cut

Runner and Gate Design Checklist Before Steel Cut

Review the selected runner and gate design for runner balance, gate location, gate size, pressure transfer, freeze-off, weld-line exposure and permitted vestige before the feed-system design is released for steel cutting.

Pre-steel engineering checklist for requirement, evidence, disposition, owner and recheck control
Runner and gate design review showing multi-cavity runner balance, gate location and pre-steel approval checks
Runner and gate approval should convert design intent into traceable requirements, supporting evidence, disposition and responsible-owner records before steel cut.

What Must Be Reviewed Before the Runner and Gate Design Is Released?

Once the gate family and mold architecture are already defined, the detailed review should confirm runner layout and balance, actual gate position, gate dimensions, pressure-transfer capability, freeze-off behavior, weld-line exposure and permitted gate vestige. Each item should be tied to a project requirement and supported by evidence before it is closed.

This is not only a technical checklist. It is a release-control record: unresolved items should be classified as Pass, Revise or Escalate, assigned to an owner and rechecked whenever the design changes.

Use the Same Approval Logic for Every Review Item

01

Review Item — identify the runner or gate feature being evaluated.

02

Requirement — define the drawing, CTQ, process or project condition that the design must satisfy.

03

Evidence — use drawing review, engineering calculation, simulation, trial evidence or another agreed technical record.

04

Disposition — record Pass, Revise or Escalate, then assign ownership and recheck any changed item before closure.

Page Boundary

This checklist reviews the detailed runner and gate design after the upstream architecture decisions have already been made. It does not select between edge, pin-point, submarine or valve gates, teach full Moldflow interpretation, diagnose molding defects or provide final approval for the complete mold.

Where This Checklist Fits in the Injection Molding Review Workflow

Parent Hub
This is a specialist Before-Steel-Cut checklist within the Injection Molding Checklists by Project Stage collection.
Upstream Decision
If the gate family is not yet fixed, first use the Injection Molding Gate Type Selection guide to choose between edge, pin-point, submarine and valve concepts.
Architecture Prerequisite
Two-plate, three-plate, hot-runner and other mold-architecture decisions should already be defined through the Injection Mold Structure Selection Guide or the project mold concept before this detailed review begins.
Request a Runner & Gate Design Review Useful inputs: latest mold drawing, part CAD, selected resin, CTQs, selected gate type, cavity count and current runner/gate layout.

Review Inputs

Required Inputs Before the Runner & Gate Review Starts

A runner and gate checklist is useful only when the team is reviewing the correct design revision, selected resin, cavity strategy, gate family and part-level CTQ requirements. Missing inputs should remain open rather than be replaced with assumptions.

Review the Latest Revision, Not an Earlier Design Snapshot

Runner balance, gate location and sizing decisions are meaningful only when they are tied to the current part geometry and mold layout. Record the drawing or model revision being reviewed so later design changes can trigger a controlled recheck.

Gate Family Should Already Be Selected

This checklist does not decide between edge, pin-point, submarine and valve gates. If the gate family is still open, resolve that upstream decision before detailed runner and gate review begins. This section only confirms that an approved gate concept is available as a review input.

CTQs and Surface Restrictions Must Be Visible to the Reviewer

Gate location cannot be approved in isolation from sealing faces, assembly interfaces, datum-related dimensions or cosmetic zones. These requirements should be visible in the review package before runner balance, weld-line exposure or vestige acceptance is judged.

Review hold: if the resin, cavity count, gate family, critical interfaces or design revision is unresolved, keep the affected review item open rather than approving the runner/gate design on assumptions.

Input Completeness Check

Confirm this baseline before the detailed engineering review begins.

Input What Must Be Confirmed If Missing or Changed
Part / Mold Revision Current CAD and runner/gate layout revision Hold or reopen affected review items
Resin Material grade and filler content Do not finalize sizing or restriction-related judgments
Cavity Strategy Cavity count and family-mold configuration Runner-balance review remains open
Gate Family Selected gate concept is approved for detailed review Return to the upstream gate-family decision
CTQ / Surface Requirements Critical dimensions, interfaces and permitted gate zones Gate-location approval remains open
Section boundary: this section confirms only that the review baseline is complete. Runner balance, gate location, gate sizing, pressure transfer, freeze-off and simulation evidence are evaluated in the following engineering sections.
Next Review Stage Once the review baseline is complete, evaluate whether the runner topology and branch balance are technically supportable before steel release.

The next section begins the detailed runner-system engineering review.

Runner Layout Review

Runner Layout & Balance Checks Before Steel Cut

Review whether the runner system provides a rational melt path, controlled branch resistance and evidence-based cavity balance before detailed feed-system geometry is released for steel cutting.

Runner layout and balance review logic Engineering review diagram comparing a balanced runner concept with an asymmetric runner path and showing the factors that should be checked before steel cut. Runner Balance Review Geometry is the starting point—not the final evidence. Comparable Resistance Sprue Cavity A Cavity B Balance Needs Evidence Branch A Branch B Review Before Release 01 Feed-path topology 02 Branch resistance 03 Runner section 04 Balance evidence when geometry is not enough
Equal-looking branches are not automatically process-balanced. Review topology first, then determine whether additional evidence is needed to support cavity balance.

Start with the feed-system architecture rather than fine-tuning runner dimensions. Review the sprue entry, branch arrangement, direction changes and cavity feed paths for avoidable restriction or unnecessary asymmetry. The objective is not to make every branch look identical; it is to establish a layout whose expected flow resistance can be justified for the actual cavity arrangement.

01

Review Runner Topology Before Detailed Sizing

Question unnecessary runner length, abrupt turns, asymmetric branching or transitions that create avoidable pressure loss. These layout issues should be corrected before detailed runner dimensions are treated as final.

02

Treat Multi-Cavity and Family-Mold Balance as an Evidence Question

Identical cavities may target comparable flow resistance, while family molds can require intentionally different branch resistance because part volume and geometry differ. The acceptance criterion should therefore be project-specific rather than based on one universal fill-time or part-weight threshold.

03

Confirm the Runner Section Fits the Actual Mold and Resin

Full-round, trapezoidal and other runner sections have different machining, release, thermal and pressure-transfer implications. The checklist should document why the selected section is appropriate rather than rank one profile as universally superior.

Review Principle

Geometric symmetry is not sufficient evidence of process balance. If cavity geometry, branch resistance or family-mold loading leaves the expected filling balance uncertain, escalate the item for additional evidence rather than forcing a Pass.

Runner Layout & Balance Review Matrix

Close each item only when the project requirement and supporting evidence are both explicit.

Review Item Requirement Evidence Decision Trigger
Sprue / Main Runner Path Practical melt entry without avoidable restriction or unnecessary routing complexity Current mold drawing and feed-path review Revise if transitions, turns or routing create avoidable resistance
Branch Balance Comparable or intentionally compensated flow resistance Layout comparison, calculation or project-specific analysis Escalate when expected cavity balance remains uncertain
Runner Cross-Section Suitable for resin, mold architecture, machining, release and pressure transfer Runner drawing and documented design rationale Revise when the selected section creates an avoidable structural or processing risk
Multi-Cavity / Family-Mold Balance Project-defined cavity-to-cavity consistency or intentional flow compensation Drawing review, calculation, short-shot data or simulation when required Escalate when geometry alone cannot support the balance decision
Multi-cavity handoff: if the unresolved question is no longer whether the runner layout is releasable, but why individual cavities show different pressure, fill, part weight, gate-freeze or process response, continue to the Multi-Cavity Mold Balancing guide for cavity-to-cavity diagnosis and validation.
Section boundary: this section reviews runner topology and balance only. Gate location, weld-line exposure and permitted vestige belong to the next review stage; gate sizing, pressure transfer and freeze-off are evaluated separately later in this checklist.
Next Review Stage Confirm whether the selected gate location is compatible with CTQs, weld-line exposure, cosmetic zones and the permitted vestige.

The next section moves from runner-system balance to the actual gate entry position on the part.

Gate Location Review

Gate Location, Weld-Line Exposure & Vestige Checks

Once the gate family has been selected, the actual gate position should be reviewed against CTQs, no-gate zones, weld-line exposure, cosmetic surfaces, assembly interfaces and the permitted gate vestige before the design is approved.

Check the Gate Position Against CTQs and No-Gate Zones

The proposed location should be compared with the current drawing, cosmetic-zone definition and assembly interfaces. A mechanically convenient gate position should not be approved if the resulting witness mark, local stress or trimming condition conflicts with a functional surface or customer-defined no-gate area.

Treat Weld-Line Position as an Approval Condition

Gate position changes the direction in which flow fronts enter and meet inside the cavity. The review should therefore identify whether a predicted weld-line region can affect a sealing face, structural feature, visible surface or other project-specific CTQ. Where the location cannot be justified from geometry alone, the item should remain open for additional evidence.

Define Vestige Acceptance Before Steel Is Cut

The checklist should record where the gate mark is allowed, how the gate will be separated and what project-specific vestige condition is acceptable. Avoid using one universal vestige-height limit across all parts; acceptance should follow the drawing, assembly clearance, cosmetic standard or approved sample requirement.

Review caution: do not approve a gate location only because the part can fill from that position. The proposed location must also be compatible with functional zones, visible surfaces, weld-line risk and the intended de-gating result.

Gate Location & Vestige Review Matrix

Record the requirement and evidence used to approve the proposed location.

Review Item Requirement Evidence Decision Trigger
Gate Position Outside prohibited functional and cosmetic zones Current part drawing and marked mold layout Revise if the proposed location conflicts with a defined zone
Weld-Line Exposure Flow-front meeting area does not create unacceptable CTQ risk Geometry review or additional analysis when required Escalate if weld-line position remains uncertain
Gate Vestige Project-defined cosmetic and assembly requirement Drawing note, visual-zone requirement or approved criterion Revise if the expected vestige conflicts with the requirement
De-Gating Interface Separation method does not damage or obstruct the part Gate detail and assembly-clearance review Keep open if break or trimming condition is not defined
Section boundary: this section approves the proposed gate location, weld-line exposure and vestige requirement. Gate dimensions, pressure transmission and freeze-off behavior are reviewed separately in the next section.
Gate Dimension Review

Gate Size, Pressure Transmission & Freeze-Off Checks

After the gate type and location are fixed, the actual gate dimensions should be reviewed for filling restriction, packing-pressure transmission, resin sensitivity and freeze-off behavior before the gate detail is approved for steel cutting.

Review Gate Size as a Flow Restriction

The gate should be large enough to support the required melt flow and pressure transfer without creating an avoidable restriction, while still meeting vestige and de-gating requirements. The review should consider resin behavior, wall thickness, flow length and the local gate geometry rather than applying one fixed gate-size ratio to every part.

Confirm Packing Pressure Can Be Transmitted Before the Gate Seals

A gate that freezes too early can limit packing of thick sections or dimension-sensitive areas even when initial filling appears acceptable. The reviewer should confirm that the proposed gate detail supports the project’s packing requirement and identify any CTQ that depends strongly on pressure transmission through the gate.

Freeze-Off Should Be an Evidence Question, Not a Guess

Where freeze-off is critical, approval should be supported by appropriate project evidence. Depending on the development stage, this may include analytical review, simulation, cavity-pressure behavior, or part-weight stabilization from an equivalent or trial condition. If the available evidence cannot justify the gate dimension, the item should remain open or be escalated.

Review caution: do not approve a small gate only because it improves vestige or de-gating. A dimension that limits pressure transfer, raises resin sensitivity or seals before the required packing response is achieved should be revised or escalated before steel release.

Gate Size & Freeze-Off Review Matrix

Record the engineering requirement and evidence used to close each item.

Review Item Requirement Evidence Decision Trigger
Gate Dimension Suitable for resin, wall thickness, flow length and part demand Gate detail, project calculation or engineering rationale Revise if the dimension is not technically justified
Pressure Transmission Gate supports required packing of CTQ-sensitive areas Packing review, pressure evidence or validated analysis Escalate if adequate packing transfer remains uncertain
Resin / Shear Sensitivity Local restriction is compatible with material behavior Material data and gate-geometry review Revise if the proposed gate creates avoidable material risk
Freeze-Off Gate seals after the required packing response is achieved Project-specific analysis, simulation or trial evidence Keep open if freeze-off cannot yet be justified
Section boundary: this section reviews gate dimensions, packing-pressure transmission and freeze-off evidence. It does not teach gate-sizing calculations, material-processing limits or Moldflow result interpretation.

Evidence Escalation

When Runner & Gate Evidence Should Escalate to Moldflow

Drawing review is sufficient for many straightforward runner and gate decisions. Escalate only when balance, pressure demand, weld-line behavior or packing-related risk cannot be closed confidently from geometry and project data alone.

Runner and gate evidence escalation workflow Engineering workflow showing when drawing evidence is sufficient, when simulation is needed, and how Moldflow interpretation and release-evidence review are separated. Evidence Escalation Workflow Escalate only when the open decision needs stronger evidence. 01 Drawing Evidence Can geometry, calculation and project data close the review item? 02 Simulation Evidence Use CAE only when the unresolved question affects release. RESULT INTERPRETATION Moldflow Analysis Fill · pressure · weld line · packing RELEASE EVIDENCE Moldflow Review Finding · action · owner · recheck
Simulation may answer the technical question, but once it becomes part of the steel-release evidence package it also needs formal review, ownership and closure.

Escalation should begin with a specific open checklist question—not with a general request to “run Moldflow.” The simulation should provide evidence for a defined decision such as whether runner branches remain acceptably balanced, whether a proposed gate location creates an unacceptable weld line, or whether pressure demand leaves enough process margin.

01

Escalate Only When Drawing-Level Evidence Cannot Close the Item

Multi-cavity interaction, long or restrictive flow paths, critical weld-line locations and packing-sensitive CTQs can require evidence beyond a drawing or geometric comparison.

02

Define the Engineering Question Before Requesting Simulation

State exactly what the CAE evidence must resolve: runner balance, gate-location effect, pressure demand, packing transfer or another specific approval question. Broad output without a decision owner does not close the checklist.

03

Separate Result Interpretation From Release-Evidence Control

The technical interpretation of Fill, Pack, pressure or weld-line results belongs to the Moldflow analysis workflow. Once those results are used to approve or revise the mold design, they must also be recorded as controlled review evidence.

Escalation Principle

Escalate because the design decision needs stronger evidence—not because every runner and gate review automatically requires simulation. The evidence level should match the project risk and the open approval question.

Moldflow Escalation Matrix

Use simulation only where it resolves a defined runner or gate approval question.

Open Review Question Why Drawing Review May Be Insufficient Evidence Needed Checklist Action
Runner Balance Branch interaction, cavity demand or family-mold loading remains uncertain Fill-balance or cavity-response evidence appropriate to the project risk Escalate until the balance decision is supported
Gate Location Flow-front path or weld-line position cannot be justified confidently from geometry Flow-front and weld-line evidence Revise or close once the location risk is understood
Pressure Margin Flow length, runner restriction or gate geometry may reduce process robustness Pressure-demand evidence at the relevant process condition Escalate when available pressure margin remains uncertain
Packing-Sensitive CTQ Dimensional performance depends strongly on pressure transfer through the selected gate system Packing-related evidence appropriate to the project Recheck the design decision after the evidence is reviewed
Need CAE Interpretation?
If the engineering team needs to understand Fill, Pack, pressure, weld-line, orientation or other Moldflow results , continue to the Moldflow Analysis Guide . That page owns the technical interpretation of simulation results.
Using CAE for Release?
If the Moldflow result is now part of the before-steel-cut approval evidence , document the finding, required action, owner, recheck status and sign-off in the Moldflow Review Checklist Before Steel Cut .
Section boundary: this section only determines when the runner or gate review needs simulation-level evidence and where that evidence should be handled. It does not teach Moldflow setup, detailed result interpretation, warpage prediction or process-window optimization.
Next Review Stage Consolidate every runner and gate item into a single Pass, Revise or Escalate approval table before release.

The next section converts the individual design checks into the master pre-steel disposition record.

Master Review Control

Master Runner & Gate Review Table: Pass, Revise or Escalate

The detailed review should end with a traceable disposition for every runner and gate item. Pass means the requirement is supported by evidence; Revise means the design itself should change; Escalate means stronger evidence is needed before approval.

Runner and gate design decision matrix for pass revise or escalate review before steel cut
The final review should convert engineering observations into a documented disposition rather than leaving open concerns inside meeting notes.

Use Pass Only When the Requirement and Evidence Match

A review item should not pass because the design “looks reasonable.” The project requirement must be defined and the available evidence must support it. For example, runner balance should have an accepted basis, gate location should respect CTQ and no-gate zones, and gate sizing should have a documented engineering rationale.

Use Revise for a Design Problem, Escalate for an Evidence Gap

These two outcomes should not be mixed. If the proposed runner path, gate position or gate dimension clearly conflicts with the project requirement, revise the design. If the concept may be acceptable but the team cannot yet prove balance, pressure margin, weld-line position or freeze-off behavior, escalate the evidence instead.

Every Open Item Must Remain Visible Until Rechecked

A revised or escalated item should stay open until the updated drawing or new evidence has been reviewed again. This prevents an unresolved runner or gate issue from disappearing between DFM comments, mold drawing revisions and the final pre-steel review.

PASS Requirement defined and supporting evidence is sufficient.
REVISE Current design conflicts with the requirement and needs modification.
ESCALATE Design may be acceptable, but additional evidence is required.

Runner & Gate Master Review Table

The table below consolidates the main decisions from the preceding engineering sections into one approval record.

Review Item Requirement Typical Evidence Pass Revise Escalate
Input Package Current revision, resin, cavity strategy, CTQs and selected gate family Approved review package Complete — Missing input
Runner Layout Practical melt path without avoidable restriction Mold drawing and design rationale Supported Weak topology Uncertain flow
Runner Balance Project-defined cavity-to-cavity consistency Geometry review, calculation or simulation Justified Imbalanced layout Need evidence
Gate Location Compatible with CTQs, cosmetic zones and assembly interfaces Part drawing and marked mold layout Location accepted Zone conflict Weld-line uncertain
Gate Vestige / De-Gating Meets project-specific cosmetic and assembly requirement Gate detail and interface requirement Accepted Interface conflict Criteria undefined
Gate Dimension Supports flow, resin behavior and part demand Gate detail and engineering rationale Justified Dimension unsuitable Need analysis
Pressure Transmission Packing requirement can be supported through the gate Packing review or project-specific evidence Supported Restriction evident Pressure uncertain
Freeze-Off Gate remains effective for required packing response Analysis, simulation or trial evidence when required Evidence supports Premature seal risk Not yet proven
Review control: this master table should record the engineering disposition only. Responsible owner, due date, recheck result and approval signature are added in the formal sign-off record in the next section.
Section boundary: this section consolidates runner and gate review decisions. It does not diagnose molding defects or prescribe trial-stage process corrections.

Review Closure & Document Control

Evidence, Ownership, Recheck & Sign-Off Before Steel Cut

A runner and gate review is not closed when comments are issued. Closure requires revision-controlled evidence, a responsible owner, documented recheck and an approval record tied to the design actually reviewed.

Runner and gate engineering review package showing controlled document revision, issue ownership, recheck evidence and sign-off
A controlled review record should tie the approved runner/gate decision to the exact mold revision, issue owner, recheck evidence and final disposition.

The final review stage should answer two different questions: “Has every open runner/gate issue been technically closed?” and “Can the team identify exactly which revision and evidence were approved?” A new drawing alone is not evidence of closure—the changed item must be rechecked against the original requirement.

01

Control the Revision Before Closing the Review

Record the project or mold number, current drawing/CAD revision, checklist revision and review date. Sign-off should always point to the same design revision that generated the reviewed evidence.

02

Keep Revise and Escalate Items Open Until Rechecked

Assign each open issue to the engineer or function responsible for the next action, define the due date and attach the updated evidence. Closure requires a recheck result—not simply confirmation that a new file was issued.

03

Sign Off the Runner/Gate Scope—Not the Entire Mold

The approval signature confirms completion of this runner and gate review cycle only. Cooling, venting, ejection, steel selection and other mold systems remain subject to their own pre-steel approval process.

Closure Principle

Close the evidence—not the comment. A design issue is complete only when the latest revision has been rechecked, the requirement is satisfied and the final disposition is traceable to an accountable reviewer.

Document Control Baseline

Identify the Exact Review Package Before Sign-Off

The web checklist and downloadable record should use the same project identity, revision and approval baseline.

Applicable Stage Detailed Mold Design · Before Steel Cut
Project / Mold No. Identify the reviewed mold or project
Part No. Link the record to the applicable molded part
Drawing / CAD Revision Record the exact design revision reviewed
Checklist Revision Keep the review template revision traceable
Review Date Date of the controlled engineering review
Prepared By Person preparing the review package
Reviewed By Responsible engineering reviewer
Approved By Final approval within the runner/gate scope

Controlled Open-Item & Sign-Off Record

Keep each Revise or Escalate item open through ownership, updated evidence and recheck until its final disposition is documented.

Review Item Current Rev. Initial Status Owner Due Date Recheck Evidence Recheck Result Approval
Gate location near CTQ Project-defined Revise Tooling / DFM owner Project-defined Updated mold layout and supporting evidence Pass / Revise / Escalate Reviewer + date
Runner balance uncertain Project-defined Escalate DFM / CAE owner Project-defined Updated balance evidence or simulation result Pass / Revise / Escalate Reviewer + date
When open runner/gate items need broader project-level prioritization: if several Revise or Escalate items remain open and must be compared with risks from other mold systems, transfer them into the RPN risk register before release so mitigation priority, ownership, evidence and residual-risk status remain traceable.
Controlled Review Template

Download the Runner & Gate Design Checklist PDF

Use the PDF for marked-up review meetings and issue closure. Before treating it as a controlled project record, complete the applicable stage, project/mold number, drawing revision, checklist revision, owner, recheck and approval fields and keep them aligned with the current mold design.

Linked template file: Professional_Runner_Gate_Design_Checklist_V2.pdf · Intended use: detailed mold design review before steel cut.
Download PDF Checklist
Scope handoff: this sign-off closes the runner/gate subsystem review only. For the broader pre-steel approval of cooling, venting, ejection, mold materials and the remaining mold systems, continue to the Injection Mold Design Checklist .
Next Section Use the FAQ to resolve recurring approval questions without reopening the full runner and gate design review.

The technical approval workflow is complete at this point; the remaining sections should summarize and support project action.

Runner & Gate Review FAQ

Runner and Gate Design Checklist FAQ

These questions summarize the main approval decisions for runner balance, gate location, gate sizing, freeze-off, evidence escalation and pre-steel sign-off .

FAQ 01

What should be checked before approving a runner and gate design?

Review the current design revision, runner layout and balance, gate location, gate dimensions, pressure transmission, freeze-off, weld-line exposure and permitted vestige. Each item should have a defined project requirement, supporting evidence and a clear disposition before the runner/gate review is closed.

FAQ 02

How should runner balance be approved in a multi-cavity mold?

Runner balance should be judged against the project’s required cavity-to-cavity consistency. Geometric symmetry may be sufficient for a straightforward layout, but family molds or uncertain branch resistance may require calculations, short-shot evidence or simulation. Use the project-specific acceptance criterion rather than one universal fill-time or weight-variation limit.

FAQ 03

What evidence is needed to approve gate location?

The proposed location should be checked against CTQs, no-gate zones, cosmetic surfaces, assembly interfaces and expected weld-line exposure. Evidence may include the current part drawing, marked mold layout and additional flow analysis when the meeting location of flow fronts cannot be justified confidently from geometry alone.

FAQ 04

How should gate size and freeze-off be approved?

Gate dimensions should be supported by resin behavior, wall thickness, flow demand, packing requirements and the permitted vestige. If freeze-off is important to a dimensional or packing CTQ, approval may require project-specific analytical, simulation, cavity-pressure or part-weight evidence rather than a fixed gate-thickness rule.

FAQ 05

When should a runner or gate review escalate to Moldflow?

Escalate when the open question cannot be closed reliably from the drawing and available project data. Common triggers include uncertain multi-cavity balance, critical weld-line position, limited pressure margin or packing-sensitive CTQs. Simulation should answer a defined approval question rather than generate broad output without a review purpose.

FAQ 06

When is the runner and gate review ready for sign-off?

Sign-off is appropriate when every review item is either supported by sufficient evidence or has been revised and rechecked. No open item should disappear between drawing revisions. The record should identify the responsible owner, recheck result and final reviewer, while broader mold systems remain subject to the overall mold-design approval process.

FAQ scope: these answers summarize runner/gate approval logic only. Gate-family selection, detailed Moldflow interpretation, defect troubleshooting and complete mold release remain outside this FAQ.
Runner & Gate Design Review

Need a Runner & Gate Design Review Before Steel Cut?

Send the current mold layout and part requirements for a focused review of runner balance, gate location, gate dimensions, pressure transmission, freeze-off and unresolved evidence gaps before the runner/gate subsystem is approved for steel cutting.

The review can identify which items are ready to pass, which require a design revision, and which need stronger engineering evidence before approval.

Review scope: this request covers runner and gate design review. Moldflow analysis may be recommended when a specific open question requires additional simulation evidence; it is not assumed for every project, and this review does not replace the complete mold-design release process.
Request a Runner & Gate Design Review Useful files: latest CAD, 2D drawing, mold layout, resin information and any existing runner/gate review comments.