As I read the question and response, the net result is an almost absolute lack of clarity. On the surface, it appears that the PR3D units in GE's hands are not used "in production"... BUT.. Can they be used during production for "research" - however broadly that term will be used by GE? Can they be used for "evaluation"? Again, with a lot of room for definitional differences between reasonable folks? Is it reasonable to expect that GE would be producing fuel nozzles and qualifying parts through traditional testing methods AND not be monitoring the build using PR3D units to "research" or "evaluate" how PR3D generated data and information about each nozzle can be used as an alternative to more time consuming and expensive qualification processes by looking for differential markers within the PR3D data patterns for those parts or groups of parts that either passes or fails via traditional methods?
It seems to me that the current production of parts, such as fuel nozzles provides an opportunity to collect data for research and testing and evaluation...at NO COST to GE, and arguably, within the limits of the currently held license for units they already have.
GE is one of the few companies that can self qualify parts and I see no reason why they would use that power to implicitly and explicitly validate and endorse PR3D directly, when they can wait for the results of independent, or at least apparently independent efforts such as AmericaMakes or the Aerojet-USAF projects. GE is very involved in the inner structure of AmericaMakes and has a strong self-interest in allowing the AmericaMakes projects and participants to be the apparent source of any official acceptance and approval of PR3D or any other enabling technology.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
