# IRON-DAD — Opening and closing proposal

**Status: proposed access architecture, not an implemented or validated wearable mechanism.**

Presentation revision R02 leaves the P01.4 CAD solids and original test records unchanged. The HTML adds a staged visualization using the original panel pivots. It does not add physical compound hinges, real latches, a body harness, a dressing stand, a working release cable, or new collision-test results.

## Proposed architecture

Keep three things distinct:

1. **The structural frame.** The rear torso and limb structures must not depend on decorative doors to complete their primary load path. Connections that carry spring forces are not routine access releases.
2. **The wearer interface.** A padded, independently opening harness and cuffs are intended to release the person from the controlled structure. This is a requirement to engineer and test, not a working feature of P01.
3. **The cosmetic skin.** Front and outboard clamshells open around the person. Rear panels can remain with the rear structure. The faceplate opens independently.

For routine dressing, a stable, positive-retention stand is proposed to hold and unload the suit while the wearer operates the access closures. The stand itself has not been designed. Independent release away from the stand remains a separate requirement; normal dressing support is not an emergency escape solution.

## Candidate panel hardware

**Clear-then-swing access hinges.** Develop a captive offset/compound hinge that first moves a door clear of adjacent overlapping skin and then rotates it outward. This is a candidate for the next CAD pass, not a selected four-bar linkage with known link lengths. It requires real kinematic constraints, stops, retention, tolerances and sweep testing. No mechanism dimension in the HTML schematic is a manufacturing dimension.

**Positive mechanical latches.** Candidate over-center draw latches with secondary catches would sit at locations reachable by the opposite hand. Panel guides should establish alignment; closure preload is not a substitute for a structural frame joint. Retention, opening force, glove dexterity, pinch clearance and accidental activation need testing. Do not treat the colored P01 reach markers as working latches.

**Separate body releases.** Face, hands and harness should have independently accessible mechanical release provisions. They must not rely on a powered display, software, battery power or disconnection of a loaded spring attachment. Release should not dump an unsupported heavy assembly onto the wearer.

No central “release everything” command is proposed as the sole way out. The release architecture still needs a defined, tested behavior in standing, seated and fallen positions.

## Proposed routine opening sequence

The HTML illustrates these access zones in order:

- Open the faceplate and keep hands available to operate closures.
- Open upper-arm and forearm clamshells.
- Open the paired chest doors and separate pelvic access gates.
- Open thigh and shin access shells.
- With the suit positively supported and unloaded in the proposed stand, release the body harness and withdraw.

Closure would reverse the access order, with gloves last. This sequence is an illustration, not demonstrated self-donning. Actual hand approaches and how each cuff supports or frees a limb remain to be modeled. The animated mannequin does not perform a realistic entry/exit task, operate a latch, or step out of footwear.

## How R02 implements the visualization

The original P01 panel geometry and hinge axes are retained. Different panel groups receive different time windows instead of all receiving the same opening angle at once. Maximum nominal panel-envelope input remains 108 degrees, with the original faceplate multiplier. The arm-abduction reference transitions from 8 to 60 degrees.

The slider is **sequence progress**, not a single physical actuator stroke, hinge angle, latch position, or “percent safe.” Exploded-view offsets are a separate inspection effect, not disassembly instructions.

## Original unresolved evidence

The original P01 report records intermediate panel-opening conflicts despite a clear open endpoint. R02 does not resolve or re-test them. The proposed compound hinge and staged order must be modeled and screened before any improved-clearance claim is made.

The original reach tests concern candidate point positions. They do not establish hand orientation, finger dexterity, glove operation, access trajectory, operating force or a successful whole-suit dressing sequence.

Read `DOCS/TEST_REPORT.md` and the original JSON evidence under `TESTS/` for exact scope and findings.

## Next mechanical work

Model one representative chest access unit with a captive hinge, guide features, latch, secondary catch, adjacent overlaps and padded human envelope. Check its entire opening sweep, not just endpoints. Model actual hand approach, closure reach and release force requirements. Only after that local mechanism works should its approach be adapted to limb access zones.

The independent harness release, supported dressing method and escape behavior must be developed alongside it. None is certified by an attractive opening animation.