Oriphim takes a system you describe, builds the governing equations, runs the model, and tests it against every check reality permits: convergence, conservation, error budgets, and sensitivity across every free parameter. You get a clear statement: what the numbers actually support, and what they don't. That's how you can afford to explore wild ideas without betting your credibility.
Objectives and margin summary. Load cases and boundary conditions. Modelling and mesh. Solver checks — mesh quality, ground checks, force balance. Margins per part with the critical case. Hand calcs, fatigue, bolted joints. Hours instead of months. A named engineer reviews it, corrects it, and signs it. Oriphim captures every correction.
Oriphim won't tell you a model is correct. Verification reports what accuracy the mathematics reached and whether conclusions survive real perturbations. Validation reports how far the model diverges from reality under stated conditions. Both are defensible claims. Neither gets dressed up as "good agreement." And every number comes from code and simulation, never from a language model filling in gaps.
Oriphim takes a described physical system, derives the governing equations, builds and runs the model, subjects it to every check the available reality permits, and states plainly what the numbers do and do not license you to conclude.
Was the mathematics solved correctly? Numerical error budgets, convergence under refinement, conservation, integrator cross-agreement, dimensional consistency, and sensitivity of the conclusion to every free parameter. This tier needs no reference data. It is available for any system you can describe. Most published computational work has never received it.
How far is the model from reality? Discrepancy against measurement, with uncertainty carried on both sides — not one representative run compared to an experimental mean and called reasonable. This tier needs reality to compare against: a published benchmark, an inter-laboratory result, or your own test campaign.
Oriphim says which tier a report belongs to, on the report. It does not produce a report it cannot stand behind.
Objectives and margin summary. Load cases and boundary conditions. How the components were modelled and meshed. Solver checks — mesh quality, ground checks, force balance. Margins per part with the critical case shown. Hand calcs. Fatigue and fracture where the program requires it. Bolted joints.
Hours instead of months. A named person reviews it, corrects it, and signs it. Oriphim captures every correction.
Judgment stays with the engineer. Where a credibility framework requires a practitioner's signature, that requirement is the product specification, not a constraint on it.
At the verification tier it claims the model was solved to a stated accuracy, and that the conclusions are or are not stable under stated perturbations. At the validation tier it claims the model is wrong by a quantified amount under stated conditions.
Both are defensible. Neither is “good agreement.”
No number is written by a language model. A model may propose a brief and write interpretive prose. Every number in a report comes from deterministic computation.
Verification is available for any system you can pose — a warped accretion disc has no mesh, no machinery and no CAD model, and Oriphim handles it natively. Validation is earned one domain at a time, and Oriphim states the limit explicitly wherever reality is not available to compare against.
FEA is one solver backend. CAD is one geometry input. Both matter when a system has geometry and are irrelevant when it doesn't.
You articulate the system and the questions, at whatever level of formality you have. You do not supply the equations. That work is Oriphim's.
Request Access