Reading the check

Somewhere on that sheet is a piece of material with nothing joining it to the rest — the moon inside a ring of cloud, a bird between two branches, a window mullion whose frame is on another sheet.

This is expected here and is not the fault it would be in Stepped Layers. A mandala is one plate, and a piece that comes away from it is lost. A landscape is a stack: the sheet behind holds the loose piece exactly where the picture put it, so it is cut loose and placed by hand at glue-up. The warning exists so you count the pieces before you weed the sheet, not so you fix something.

If you would rather not handle them, four things change it, all under Loose pieces or beside it. Add bridges lets the build tab each one back on. Cut away takes them out of the sheet altogether - nothing to place, at the cost of the depth they stood at: each falls back to the first sheet behind where it is joined to the frame. Raising Min feature size makes the build absorb the small ones instead of cutting them - it compares each piece's area with the size squared. Generating again with that depth described as a connected thing — a fence with rails, a tree with a trunk to the ground — removes them at the source, which is the best of the four.

With Loose pieces on Cut away, every piece attached to nothing is taken out of its sheet. On this sheet that was everything drawn on it, so it comes off the laser as a bare frame.

It happens most with a design drawn on a page: inside a Frame border nothing in the design touches the frame, so on the front sheets all of it floats. A piece cut away falls back to the first sheet behind where it is joined to the frame - often the backdrop - so the design still shows, but flatter, with fewer steps of depth.

To keep that sheet's detail, choose Cut loose and glue its pieces in place, or Add bridges to tab them on. The Outline border, which follows the design, joins more of it to the frame. Rebuilding with another choice is free.

Two bodies of material on the sheet are joined by a neck narrower than your minimum bridge width. This is an error rather than a warning because it is load-bearing: the neck is what holds the piece beyond it, and at that width it snaps during weeding, taking the piece with it.

Cutting the scene larger is the fix that costs nothing — the whole picture scales, so the neck scales with it, and rebuilding at a new size is free. The repair has already widened every neck it could, whether or not Add bridges is on, so turning that on does not help here; otherwise drop Detail a step so the picture has fewer places that thin.

The point of a pine, a blade of grass, the sliver between two branches of a fork. Each is narrower than your minimum for its last few millimetres, and each is held by the material behind it rather than by the neck the minimum is about.

These are kept exactly as drawn, counted, and reported with the narrowest measurement, because widening them turns every point in the picture into a blunt lump — which was the old behaviour, and it was worse. It cuts. The very finest points may char. The message says how wide the scene would have to be for every point to clear the minimum, and cutting larger is what makes them crisp.

For scale: the purchased reference designs carry runs of 2 mm material thirty millimetres long, and they cut fine.

The scene plan expected something at a particular depth — the cabin at the middle, say — and the picture that came back did not draw it there.

Usually the prompt was read more loosely than you meant. Name the thing plainly in the prompt, set it explicitly as the Focal subject, and generate again. Check the focal subject field first if you have changed what the scene is about: it stays with the scene, and the brief asks for it whether or not the prompt still mentions it.

Once every nearer sheet is on, a protected element shows less than its floor — about two thirds for a primary subject, about half for a secondary one — and the repair could not lift it back over in three rounds.

Some overlap is the point, and the studio does not try to remove it; this is the case where the foreground has buried the thing the piece is of. Either generate again with the subject named as the focal element and placed more clearly, or lower the layer count so there are fewer foreground sheets to hide it behind.

Trim sheets that hide the focal subject, under Repairs, lets the build erode the offending sheet instead. It is off by default and worth understanding before you turn it on — see Every control.

Information only, and the one line here that is not a problem. The sheets in front overlap a protected element a little, which is what makes the piece read as deep rather than as a stack of stencils. Nothing to do.

That sheet contributes almost none of the picture. It still cuts and still stacks, but you are spending a sheet of material and a cutting run on something nobody will see.

Either use fewer layers, or generate a depth map with clearer separation between distances. A scene with three real depths asked to fill eight sheets will always produce a few of these.

Two neighbouring sheets carry almost the same silhouette, so gluing them up gives one thick layer rather than two steps of depth. The same answer as above: fewer layers, or a picture with more distinct depths.

Every sheet is supposed to carry the identical outer boundary, because that boundary is what lines the stack up. One does not. Whichever border you chose — a frame or a circle, or an outline traced round the design — it is built once and stamped on every sheet, so this is never a matter of one sheet's picture.

This should not happen. Rebuild the scene, and if it happens again send us the scene — Save scene.json and attach the file — because it is our bug rather than your picture.