How Regradia compares

Coverage, neutrality, and cost —
vs the vendor-paper alternative.

Most of what an extrusion operator finds on the open web is written behind a form gate or behind an hourly invoice. Regradia is built the other way around — the playbook is the product, the comparison below is the reasoning behind it, and the CTA at the bottom lands you back in the playbook.

Block 1 · Coverage

Depth on the six flagships — and the gap vendor papers leave.

Regradia carries deep coverage on six recurring extrusion defects. Vendor white papers typically treat the same symptoms as additive-residue or screw-speed problems and stop there — the second- and third-generation failure modes are the part that drifts out of scope.

D-01
Deep coverage
Surging

Vendor-paper gap

White papers treat surge rhythm as a feed-throat problem and stop at screw-speed trim. The 3rd-gen failure mode (mixed rheology pressing against a tighter melt-viscosity floor) is typically a footnote.

D-02
Deep coverage
Die-lip buildup

Vendor-paper gap

Most vendor content frames lip buildup as an additive-residue problem and prescribes a lube-package change. The oxidative-carryover case on 3rd-gen streams is out of scope in the published write-ups.

D-03
Deep coverage
Melt-filter fouling

Vendor-paper gap

Single-mode loading (fibre fines) is well-covered; uneven polyolefin-oxidation loading on a 3rd-gen bale stream — the case where the pack pockets and breaks through in spikes — is the gap.

D-04a
Deep coverage
Gels

Vendor-paper gap

Recipes are calibrated against a single failure mode (PE/PP crosslink). Mixed-mode survivals on 3rd-gen (PVC/PET contamination plus oxidized-PP islands) are usually treated as out of scope.

D-05
Deep coverage
Odor and volatiles

Vendor-paper gap

Devolatilisation notes in vendor literature stop at vent sizing. The 2nd/3rd-gen carry-over budget — what the conversion window actually absorbs before condensate shows up — is the missing detail.

D-06
Deep coverage
MFI drift between generations

Vendor-paper gap

White papers cover MFI as a test method, not as a recipe variable. Lot-to-lot spread as the feedstock shifts from 2nd to 3rd gen is the silent contributor most recipes do not restate.

Block 2 · Neutrality

Independent on three axes where vendor content is not.

Regradia has no equipment-supplier tie-in, no resin SKU to sell, and no preference for 1st-gen over 2nd/3rd-gen feedstock. The neutrality is structural, not a marketing line — the platform has nothing to upsell.

N-01
Axis
Equipment-vendor agenda

Typical bias

Aligned to extruder / filter OEM — recipes assume their additive package and mesh schedule.

Regradia position

Independent of any equipment supplier. No OEM mix upgrade is recommended because a specific melt filter is on contract.

N-02
Axis
Additive / resin resale

Typical bias

Aligned to resin supplier portfolio — articles steer toward a higher-grade resin or a stabiliser top-up.

Regradia position

Tracks off-spec material VALUE (downstream recovery, converter-window held) rather than resin resale. No resin SKU is preferred because the platform sells it.

N-03
Axis
Generation coverage

Typical bias

Recipes tuned to 1st-gen / near-virgin feedstock; 3rd-gen is a footnote or an "edge case".

Regradia position

Equally covers 2nd and 3rd generation feedstock. The defect entries treat generation drift as a primary variable, not a closing paragraph.

Block 3 · Cost

Free playbook, instead of an hourly invoice — or a sales-led funnel.

Below is a side-by-side of how the three approaches differ in cost, time-to-answer, and ownership of the recipe. Numbers are illustrative European SME extrusion-line ballparks, not a price list — the structural difference is what matters.

Regradia

Open
  • Up-front access

    Free — playbook is open and ungated at /playbook.

  • Cost model

    No invoice — the lookup is the product.

  • Time to first answer

    Open the entry — under a minute, no intake form.

  • Recipe ownership

    Technician-written, consultant-reviewed; versioned; field-tested notes per defect.

  • Independence on follow-up

    No follow-up sale attached. Expert escalation is opt-in and metered separately.

Consultant engagement

Gated
  • Up-front access

    Engagement fee before any data is shared.

  • Cost model

    Hourly rate, typically €350–€700 / hr + travel; minimum half-day engagement.

  • Time to first answer

    Multi-day response window; on retainer for priority cases.

  • Recipe ownership

    Owned by the consultant who wrote it; no audit trail after engagement ends.

  • Independence on follow-up

    Follow-up engagements quoted per case; relationship is the product.

Vendor white paper

Gated
  • Up-front access

    PDF download behind a marketing-qualified form.

  • Cost model

    Free read, but recipes steer resin / additive / equipment purchases.

  • Time to first answer

    Read time only — but the actionable line is buried in a 4,000-word article.

  • Recipe ownership

    Owned by the vendor; updates ride the next product launch.

  • Independence on follow-up

    Follow-up is the next purchase or the next demo.

Block 4 · Open the playbook

Ready when you are.
The playbook is open, ungated, and versioned.

Every defect entry has a symptoms-to-recipe lookup, a process variable table, and a verification step — written from the line back to the variable, not from a sales deck. No form, no intake, no hourly invoice.

Typical response within one business day on hard cases viaregradia@polsia.app.