[10] focused on the welding process and the post-veld heat treatment, and [PERSON] et al. [11] aimed for the microstructure and mechanical properties. In this selection of works which are representative of the recent literature in the subject, microstructural analyses and mechanical property assessments can be found for both the deposited material and the base material. However, the mechanical properties of the transition line between the wrought and additively deposited materials have not been thoroughly studied. To conduct this type of research, targeted at a very short transition region between two materials, miniaturized specimen testing can be used. This type of testing allows for high spatial resolution in specimen extraction, and it is finding growing use in detailed studies of joints made of a variety of metals. [PERSON] et al. [12] employed miniaturized tensile testing specimens to characterize a joint area between forged Ti-6 Al-4V and a 60 \(\times\) 60 \(\times\) 20 mm\({}^{3}\) DED-LB overlay [13]. The size of the sample specimens in this approach was 45 \(\times\) 10 \(\times\) 2 mm\({}^{3}\), while the volume of interest was of 10 \(\times\) 2 \(\times\) 0.5 mm\({}^{3}\). The advantages of this testing approach explain why other authors have preferred further reduced sampling techniques. [PERSON] et al. [13], [PERSON] et al. [14], and [PERSON] [15] employed small punch testing (SPT) specimens dimensioned at 10 \(\times\) 10 \(\times\) 0.5 mm\({}^{3}\) to assess the mechanical properties of arc-welded X60 steel, Co alloy DED-LB overlays on rolled 316L stainless steel, and Inconel 713 overlays on cast Inconel 713, respectively. In these three cases, the transition between the deposited metal and the base metal was not perpendicular to the loading. As a consequence, these tests did not assess the junction area strength itself, but measured the average of the heat-affected zone (HAZ) and the deposited metal, which varied depending on the specimen dissection position. Similar drawbacks were found in the works by [PERSON] et al. [16], [PERSON] et al. [17], and [PERSON] et al. [18]. In these three cases, the interface was positioned along the diameter of the SPT specimen for Inconel 713/Inconel 713 arc deposition, P91/316L steel arc depositions, and W/Ta diffusion clads, respectively. During the bulging of the SPT, the actual load in a diameter-spanning junction area is shared equally by the HAZ and the deposited material. However, none of the approaches in the aforementioned studies loaded the interface perpendicularly; therefore, this gap in the literature highlights the need for an improved SPT configuration to test the mechanical properties of transition interfaces. Despite the difficulties found in properly aligning the load and the weld line, there is still interest in using SPT because the reduction in the sampling volume when comparing miniature tensile testing [12] to SPT [13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18] is 18 to 1. Furthermore, the study from [PERSON] et al. [19] specifically compared the use of tensile testing and SPT for laser-based powder bed fusion (PBF-LB), where they found the cost ratio of tensile-to-SPT to be in the range of 100 to 1. Thus, among the many options for miniature testing, the SPT methodology shows great advantages when studying small areas of interest in expensive alloys and technologies, such as Inconel 718 and products from metal additive manufacturing. This explains why even though more traditional tensile testing is used for mechanical property research with Inconel 718 via PBF-LB and DED-LB, works employing SPT are also growing. It is noticeable that tensile testing is employed preferably for the comparison of properties obtained on Inconel 718 when using different manufacturing technologies. [PERSON] et al. [20] explored differences in the room temperature tensile properties of PBF-LB, DED-PB, and cast and wrought Inconel 718. The work of [PERSON] et al. [21] complements this scope by comparing the results obtained when employing both powder- and wire-fed DED-LB.