FTQS already ingests the 78-row Charpy impact-energy sheet into assets/hea_impact_energy.csv, but the data is not used by the current qualification workflow. A small companion baseline would show what can honestly be learned from this asset without mixing impact energy with fracture toughness.
A useful first implementation would:
- Treat Charpy impact energy as its own target and keep it separate from KIC/KQ/J-derived values.
- Reuse the existing composition parsing and physical descriptors where they are applicable.
- Use a deterministic, group-aware evaluation so related alloy or source records do not leak across the split.
- Compare the chosen model with a simple constant or linear baseline.
- Report sample counts, held-out errors, uncertainty, and the limits imposed by a 78-row dataset; avoid making a coverage claim the split cannot support.
- Provide a reproducible command that writes a compact metrics artifact or report.
- Add focused tests for data loading, grouping, deterministic output, and target/unit handling.
- Document the method and its limitations in
docs/METHODS.md and the README.
The existing fracture-toughness workflow and artifacts should remain unchanged by default. PLAN.md, src/ingest_fan2023.py, and tests/test_ingest_fan2023.py are good starting points.
FTQS already ingests the 78-row Charpy impact-energy sheet into
assets/hea_impact_energy.csv, but the data is not used by the current qualification workflow. A small companion baseline would show what can honestly be learned from this asset without mixing impact energy with fracture toughness.A useful first implementation would:
docs/METHODS.mdand the README.The existing fracture-toughness workflow and artifacts should remain unchanged by default.
PLAN.md,src/ingest_fan2023.py, andtests/test_ingest_fan2023.pyare good starting points.