I recently watched recording of the November 2025 Release Review and the recording of the Focus Group on Formula Driven Materials. And, I have an issue with the material designations that I believe was missed inadvertently. The way the lookup tables are set up you have three letters to designate the core as FSC, NAF, and/or Moisture-Resistant based on the original requestor metric shown in the Focus Group recording. The first character is for FSC (either an "F" or "0"), The second character is for NAF (either an "N" or "0"), and the third character is for Moisture-Resistant (either an "M" or "0"). However, we also have materials that are Fire-Rated that aren't accounted for in this metric.

One way to handle this would be for Microvellum to add a fourth column to the Formula Driven Material for designating a material as Fire-Rated like the other columns either being a letter or a "0".  I would suggest using an "R" to make it stand out from the "F" used for FSC. However, I dislike adding another column as this eats into the maximum number of characters used in some Material Handling Systems, the Homag IntelliStore has a limit of 50 characters for instance. Although this seems like a lot, it isn't when you start naming the face laminates or veneer.

You could also use the "R" designating a material as Fire-Rated into the existing three columns. As I have not run into a Moisture-Resistant core that is also Fire-Rated (no matter how much it is specified by an Architect), we could use the third character to designate the material as Fire-Rated. If in the future that a Moisture-Resistant and Fire-Rated core becomes available, you could use another letter like "X" to designate it in the third column.

I mostly wanted to encourage some discussion in the forum to see what others thought about the best way to handle Fire-Rated materials with the new version of Formula Driven Materials being recently added.