## 2 Materials and Methods
### Geometrical Characterization  
The same component was deposited on both machines under the same conditions (building strategy, process parameters, substrate fixture, etc.).  
During the depositions, ten pauses were taken at specific points, typically every 16 layers. The distance between the top surface of the substrate and the positioner table was measured with a caliper in eight specific positions along the perimeter of the substrate: at the four corners and at the four midpoints of the substrate sides, during the ten pauses, and after the deposition competition. The measured heights are made up of the substrate thickness (which is assumed to be constant) and its deformation, which is caused by the residual stress of the component. Once in place on the positioner tables, initial height measurements of the two substrates in the eight considered places were taken and utilized as the baseline to calculate cumulative deformation at the various pauses. Furthermore, the current deformation increment is calculated by subtracting the cumulative deformation at each pause from the previously measured value. The distance between the sampling locations and the center of the substrate, which is the sole section of it that is attached to the positioner table and cannot move, is used to standardize the readings. The residual stress action on the substrate and the component itself can be evaluated by assessing the cumulative deformation and deformation increments at each planned stop. This information aids in the interpretation of the outcomes of the 3D scanning procedure. Figure 8 illustrates the positions of the pauses taken during the deposition phase to measure the substrate height, as well as a representative scheme of the taken measurement and the probing spots on the substrate perimeter.  
Following deposition, the two components were scanned with an EDGE ScanArm by FARO Technologies Inc. (Lake Mary, FL, USA), yielding a 3D reconstruction of the actual deposited components. The components were not removed from the substrate. The two resulting 3D models were then dimensionally compared to the original CAD file, with the CAD file aligned to the 3D acquisitions using the substrate top surface surrounding the component base and the component axis of symmetry. This comparison highlights geometrical inaccuracies and distortions between the programmed tool path and the actually deposited component. In addition, the two 3D acquisitions were compared, revealing variances between the two machines. Four sections were also virtually sliced so that the variations between the designed and deposited components could be easily identified. By intersecting the component scans and CAD file with two vertical and orthogonal planes centered on the component axis, the four sections were obtained (Figure 9). These analyses were conducted on PolyWorks Inspector, by InnovMetric Software Inc. (Quebec City, QC, Canada).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline Laser power, [W] & 875 \\ \hline Laser spot diameter, [mm] & 2.4 \\ \hline Scan speed, [mm/s] & 10 \\ \hline Initial standoff, [mm] & 8 \\ \hline Powder feed rate, [g/min] & 9 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The set of process parameters used on the two machines.