Not trial versions, not reduced editions: the full products, each at its own address, behind the same sign-in. One comes before the simulator. Two come after.
None of them sells on its own, and that is deliberate. Each exists because the simulator by itself answers one question, and a line decision has four.
"Can I trust this measurement?"
The question that comes before all the others. A simulation fed by a cycle time nobody verified produces a confident wrong answer, which is the most expensive kind. Thirty analysis tools on one numerical core, with no external dependencies at all.
It fits the distribution to your data instead of assuming normal, which is precisely the variability input the simulator asks for. And Gage R&R answers first: can the measurement system see the variation you want to control, or is the cycle time you wrote down mostly noise?
A 27-chapter manual inside the app, 11 of them with a live demo driven by the real engine. A test fails the build if a tool ships without its chapter.
Variables sampling against two limits at once: single-limit plans only. Run each limit as its own plan and take the tighter of the two. It is conservative, and the app says so on screen.
It reads .xlsx and writes CSV. Writing xlsx natively would mean pulling in a ZIP library, and this product has zero dependencies on purpose: it has to keep working on a plant PC that will never see an install.
Statistics as a service to the other products: not yet. It is the suite's single owner of statistics precisely so the others ask it instead of reimplementing the same maths. That call does not exist yet.
"Is it worth the money?"
A business case is not the new line's cash flow. It is with the investment minus without it. Most inflated cases come from comparing an optimistic proposal against a present that was assumed to stand still.
The simulator's financial page declares itself an engineering estimate for screening: no working capital, no financing, no sales taxes, no inflation, no FX, no ramp-up, no residual value. All of that is what the Analyzer puts around the predicted gain. It is the difference between prioritising a project and approving one.
Your financial data never reaches us. The server computes and does not store, and a test fails the build if a financial field can reach a log.
No multi-user approval workflow, and no sync between your devices. Both are a direct consequence of not storing your data. An approver approves by receiving the signed file.
No perpetuity terminal value. A machine has a finite life. Putting a perpetuity at the end of it inflates the NPV in a way that is easy to write and impossible to defend.
"Did the gain actually show up?"
Most improvement programmes end where the money is approved. This one is built around what comes after: the benefit is measured, not declared, and a project is allowed to close with the gain unconfirmed. A system in which every project ends green is a system that lies.
The simulator predicted a gain. Here it becomes a success criterion stamped before the measurement window opens, and that stamp is the proof the criterion came before the number. It is the only part of the suite that can tell you the prediction was wrong.
Phases start as Charter, Baseline, Analysis, Implementation, Verification, Standardisation. You add, remove and reorder them, and the numbering is positional, so it stays correct when you do.
The schedule cascade moves in calendar days, not working days, and the lag between linked tasks is fixed rather than configurable per link.
Statistics inside this product are out of scope, deliberately. Capability, control charts and MSA belong to 6Sigma Studio. Reimplementing them here would produce two answers that diverge exactly on the hard case.
Capacity comes from the simulator, statistics from 6Sigma Studio, the financial verdict from the Analyzer, the measured gain from the Project Manager. No product recomputes another's number. Whoever receives one displays it.
That is why they cannot contradict each other in front of your board. Two implementations of the same calculation diverge, and they diverge on the hard case.
Today each product is used on its own and you carry the number across yourself. The direct hand-off between the apps is being built.
When it ships it will be described here, and not one day earlier. A single dashboard over all four is not planned, and that is also not an oversight: a figure shown away from the conditions that produced it is a figure waiting to be misread.
You buy the Line Simulator and these three come with it, in full, behind the same sign-in.