## 1 Introduction
[8] discusses the need for standardized methods to qualify AM materials and expresses apprehension related to the similitude between AM hardware and tensile test samples built to qualify an AM material or parameter set. Selective laser melting (SLM) is a metal AM process that has shown incredible potential for low-cost production of specialized components for turbine and rocket engines. SLM results in near net-shape parts with minimal need for post-build machining. [PERSON] et al. [9] postulated that SLM is ideal for rocket engine components because it combines multiple subassemblies into a single manufacturing process, and components may be built in a fraction of the time and cost compared to conventional methods. Their work inspired the propagation of AM throughout the rocket industry which led to increased demand for development of AM process parameters for nickel-based alloys. [PERSON]. [10] presented progress toward the development of AM for rocket engines for NASA applications and explained how cost and schedule to produce prototype engines can be drastically reduced by using AM processes such as SLM. For the aerospace industry to fully realize this potential, advances in high-throughput mechanical testing are necessary. An array of methods are being evaluated for their effectiveness in meeting the demands for low-cost and high-speed mechanical characterization. Although microtensile tests allow measurement of mechanical properties in protocols that are most similar to the standardized UTT while requiring only small amounts of material, they are largely hindered by the machining time required to produce test samples. [PERSON] et al. [11] described the use of femtosecond laser machining to combat restrictions imposed by conventional machining techniques and applied this higher efficiency machining method to the preparation of microtensile samples. While they focused on improving the machining process for microtensile samples, their work inherently indicates that the machining required to produce microtensile samples inhibits the high-throughput ability of microtensile testing. Like UTT, microtensile samples are also difficult to test in a high-throughput manner because each sample must be manually installed into a tensile load frame with proper alignment before it is tested. Hardness tests, using a variety of tip shapes and sizes, have long been used by the metal processing industry for quick and low-cost evaluations of the mechanical properties of their metal products. [PERSON] et al. [12] utilized these techniques to produce maps of hardness values in an SLM-produced part to validate their hypothesis related to variations in hardness between heat-treated and as-built SLM samples. However, accurate quantitative correlations between hardness measurements and intrinsic material properties, such as tensile yield strength, that are broadly applicable to a wide variety of materials are still lacking. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13] identified that indentation size and depth are directly related to nanohardness measurements, thereby suggesting that intrinsic material properties cannot be obtained with conventional hardness testing. Two emergent protocols that have recently demonstrated substantial potential for rapid screening of mechanical properties are the microindentation stress-strain (MSS) protocols and small punch test (SPT) protocols. [PERSON] et al. [14] presented a method to determine indentation stress-strain curves from nanoindentation load-displacement data and the MSS technique used for this paper is based on their approach. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] described SPT protocols which they used to determine material parameters that relate finite element (FE) simulations of SPT to experimental SPT load-displacement data. [PERSON] et al. [16] discusses different correlation methods for predicting the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of steel alloys from SPT load-displacement curves and asserts the accuracy of SPT for UTS determination.