## 1 Introduction  
Numerous pieces of research in the field of AM have resulted in a large number of manufacturing limitations, as well as in the design guidelines. Through the understanding of all manufacturing limitations, design rules can be defined to achieve better product quality and dimensional accuracy [1; 2; 3; 4]. Design rules are also used for comparing the dimensional accuracy of the product printed with different AM processes [5]. The minimum feature size and tolerances of AM processes depends on the smallest parts that can be printed. This is connected to dimensional accuracy and repeatability of the machine in all AM processes [6]. The design, production, and measurement of a standardised test plate (test artefacts) allow the assessment of the performance of AM machines and processes [7]. Every AM process has a limit on the smallest feature that it can print. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [8] found out that this depends on the used process and machine (size of nozzle, beam diameter), materials (e.g., particle size), resolution in the \(x\), \(y\) and \(z\) direction, layer thickness, shape of the part, feature direction (debossed or embossed), part orientation in the working chamber of the machine, etc. There are a large number of additive manufacturing processes. However, in this paper, we deal with the material jetting process, which uses photopolymers. [PERSON] et al. [5] and [PERSON] [9] expanded the aforementioned limits to PolyJet and added surface finish types (matte and glossy). In the PolyJet process, layer thicknesses of 16 and 32 micrometres can be printed and the machine has a resolution of 42 micrometres in the \(x\) and \(y\) directions. In AM, test plates are used not only to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the parts but also to measure and compare accuracy, surface finish, repeatability and resolution of the geometrical features of the parts produced. The test plate helps in identifying the \"highest standards of excellence\" for different products/processes so that the subsequent improvements necessary to achieve those standards can be made [10]. The test plate design has been proposed by many authors throughout the evolution of the products made by AM. The test plate must include rectangular and circular features to find out the minimum part/feature size. The most important advantage of PolyJet is high resolution, so authors in literature [7; 9] suggested circle diameter from 0.1 mm to 1 mm, rectangle width from 0.1 mm to 1 mm and rectangle length from 0.3 mm to 3 mm. In some literature references, it can be found that the smallest test features of the AM test plate were 0.25 mm thin walls (for both polymer-based and metal-based AM processes), 0.2 mm diameter holes and bosses in polymer-based AM processes, and 0.5 mm diameter holes and bosses in metal-based AM processes [6; 11]. [PERSON] et al. [12; 13] also suggested some rules for test artefacts for the additive manufacturing standard accuracy test. These rules are: test plate must test machine performance near the end of the platform as well as in the centre, have features of different sizes, as well as have holes and bosses. Many of the features should represent real-life parts like thin walls, flat surfaces, holes, and more. Additionally, the plate should be built as fast as possible with small amounts of material and be easy to measure. [PERSON] et al. [14] added that test plate needs to have simple geometrical shapes, without post-treatment (e.g., without support structures), and allow repeatability measurements. Authors [PERSON] et al. [15] concluded that the product orientation and size affect the quality of the products printed with PolyJet, whereas the location of the products in the working chamber has no influence. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16] and [PERSON] et al. [14] tested the dimensional accuracy of equal parts made by different AM processes as well as when the parts were made by the same process but with different printers.