When I worked at Caterpillar, their tool design department used a LOT of weldments for making machining fixtures. Weldment pieces were parts that became a welded component. The weldment, treated "like" a part was actually a Pro/e assembly. Inside another assembly, everything becomes a component, so a "part's" origins as part or assembly, was of no concern to Pro/e. The weldment components were named FX304-a, FX304-b, ....-c, ....-d, etc. With the dash numbers, the assembly could be treated as a part ~ IOW, as a weldment. Yet, the welded pieces could each, for the sake of a cut table, be two sizes. With a feature added to represent material removed for squaring, you'd get the rough cut size; with that feature suppressed, you'd be able to assemble the part, in a configuration, as if it had been machined. In the end, you got an assembly, with weldments of squared blocks; and you got a cut table, with actual pieces of rough cut stock sizes, to show on a weldment BOM. It was pretty neat and very effective in eliminating all the ridiculous contortions you're going through. Part FEATURES into Parts!?! Copy Geoms? or some other contortions? Don't be silly, just bite the bullet and model the crap. The only thing at stake here is the vaunted reputation of whatever shortsighted dumbass came up with this scheme in the first place. Purportedly, he's got too bigga head to admit he made a horrible mistake and say it's time to "rethink the old strategy". Hopefully, I'm way off base, 180 off the mark and owing someone an apology. Maybe I've just seen too much dumbass crap in my life. Or maybe I just lived long enough to tell the tale.