{"id":3238,"date":"2026-10-16T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-16T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/?p=3238"},"modified":"2026-10-16T17:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-10-16T09:00:00","slug":"die-life-estimation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/supplier-verification\/die-life-estimation\/","title":{"rendered":"Die Life Estimation: A Buyer Record for Stamping Tools"},"content":{"rendered":"

Die Life Estimation: A Buyer Record for Stamping Tools<\/h1>\n

A tooling cita<\/a> says a stamping die will last for a stated number of parts. The buyer then asks for the die ID, drawing revision, blank material, press record, good-part history, wear observations, maintenance record, and end-of-service criterion. The estimate often becomes less certain at that point, but more useful.<\/p>\n

Die life estimation is a project-specific forecasting record that identifies the die, part, material, press, operating conditions, inspection history, wear observations, maintenance events, and stated end-of-service criteria so a buyer and qualified specialists can review replacement or refurbishment planning.<\/strong> It is not a universal parts-per-die promise, cost-per-part number, warranty, safety determination, maintenance instruction, or approval to keep running equipment.<\/p>\n

A good die life estimation record makes its unknowns visible. That is preferable to a neat lifespan claim with no evidence behind it.<\/p>\n

Table of contents<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. What does die life estimation mean?<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Which variables belong in a die-life record?<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Why must a wear model be checked against production evidence?<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. What can die-life records show and not show?<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. How should replacement and refurbishment planning be documented?<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Why is press safety separate from a die-life forecast?<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Which issues need escalation?<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. What are the challenges and limitations?<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Frequently asked questions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What does die life estimation mean?<\/h2>\n

    Die life estimation is a forecast based on an identified tool and its operating history, rather than a label attached to a tooling quote. The forecast can organize evidence for a buyer, supplier, tooling specialist, process engineer, calidad<\/a> team, and finance owner. It cannot establish how long a particular die will last without project-specific data and qualified assessment.<\/p>\n

    For die life estimation, separate three things that are often blended together: a count of parts, an observation of tool condition, and a decision acerca de<\/a> service. A total stroke count may be useful. It is not the same as a good-part count. A visible wear mark may matter. It is not automatically the end of service. A repair quote may be a planning input. It is not proof that refurbishment is the correct decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Term<\/th>\nPractical record meaning<\/th>\nWhat it does not mean<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Die identity<\/td>\nA controlled tool ID, configuration, drawing\/revision, and stated location<\/td>\nA generic description such as \u201cthe same die\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Run count<\/td>\nA stated count source, date range, run record, and definition of count<\/td>\nA verified life value without checking its basis<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Good-part count<\/td>\nParts recorded as acceptable under the stated project criteria<\/td>\nA full measure of press strokes, scrap, or tool health<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Wear observation<\/td>\nDated evidence of a stated location and condition<\/td>\nA life prediction or repair decision by itself<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Maintenance event<\/td>\nDocumented service, condition finding, and related tool state<\/td>\nProof that all earlier or later conditions were identical<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    End-of-service criterion<\/td>\nThe project\u2019s documented trigger for specialist review or action<\/td>\nA universal replacement rule<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The automotive-panel stamping research by Qiao and colleagues models die wear using factors that include contacto<\/a> pressure, wear coefficient, and die-material hardness through a treatment layer. [1] It illustrates that die life estimation is tied to a defined case and inputs, not a single generic count.<\/p>\n

    The record must name the case. Die life estimation should always identify the case behind the forecast.<\/p>\n

    Which variables belong in a die-life record?<\/h2>\n

    A die life estimation file should collect the conditions that could change the meaning of the forecast. The list should reflect the actual product and production route. It is a request for evidence, not a maintenance procedure or an instruction to operate equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Record area<\/th>\nEvidence to retain<\/th>\nWhy the connection matters<\/th>\nBoundary<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Tool identity and configuration<\/td>\nDie\/tool ID, revision, inserts, stated treatment, location, change record<\/td>\nConfirms which physical configuration generated the history<\/td>\nAn ID does not prove current condition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Part and blank material<\/td>\nPart revision, blank\/material identification, source\/date<\/td>\nConnects forming conditions to a stated input<\/td>\nA material name does not predict wear<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Operation and feature<\/td>\nStation\/operation, feature location, drawing link<\/td>\nIdentifies where an observation arose<\/td>\nOne feature does not describe the full die<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Press and stated run context<\/td>\nMachine ID, run\/date record, approved setup reference if supplied<\/td>\nPreserves the production context for the count<\/td>\nIt is not a press-safety clearance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Lubrication\/process record where relevant<\/td>\nStated material, method, supplier record, change history<\/td>\nShows whether the process input changed<\/td>\nIt does not establish suitability or a recommendation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Production outcome<\/td>\nStated stroke\/run count, good parts, scrap\/rework, defect record<\/td>\nLinks tool history to observed output<\/td>\nCounts alone do not determine root cause<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Condition evidence<\/td>\nDated inspection or wear observation, image\/measurement reference, record owner<\/td>\nMakes a condition finding reviewable<\/td>\nA finding does not dictate a repair action<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Service history<\/td>\nDated maintenance\/refurbishment record, scope, parts changed, tool state<\/td>\nSeparates observed history into comparable periods<\/td>\nIt does not predict the next interval<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The SAE paper on automotive stamping states that wear estimation should be correlated with production data, die-maintenance records, and explicit wear measurements to validate the estimation. [2] A die life estimation sheet that lacks those sources is a planning hypothesis, not a validated life result.<\/p>\n

    History gives a forecast a basis. Die life estimation is weaker when the history cannot be linked to a controlled tool record.<\/p>\n

    Why must a wear model be checked against production evidence?<\/h2>\n

    A mathematical model can organize a question about wear. It cannot be trusted merely because it produces a precise number. The model must be tied to the relevant die, operation, material, production conditions, and observed history.<\/p>\n

    Qiao and colleagues created a dynamic-model approach for automotive-panel stamping. Their abstract says it accounts for contact pressure, a wear coefficient, and material hardness in a treatment layer, and compares the model against practical wear conditions. [1] The paper describes a relationship between wear depth and stamping times for a stated engine-hood feature-line case. That research does not supply a ready-made die life estimation calculator for another part, press, die, or material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    If the planning file contains<\/th>\nIt can help a specialist examine<\/th>\nIt cannot establish alone<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Dated run and good-part history<\/td>\nThe stated production exposure for one period<\/td>\nActual wear mechanism or remaining life<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Dated condition observation<\/td>\nA visible or measured tool condition at a stated location<\/td>\nHow quickly the condition will change<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Material, tool, and operation records<\/td>\nWhether key inputs remained stated or changed<\/td>\nA universal wear rate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Maintenance and refurbishment history<\/td>\nWhat was serviced and when<\/td>\nThe best future interval or replacement decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Model output or supplier forecast<\/td>\nAssumptions to question and compare with data<\/td>\nA guarantee, warranty, or safe-run authorization<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Quality and scrap evidence<\/td>\nWhether output signals track a stated period<\/td>\nThe exclusive cause of a defect<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The uncomfortable truth is that a spreadsheet can look more precise as it moves farther away from observed evidence. Die life estimation becomes more credible when each assumption points back to a dated source record.<\/p>\n

    Validation changes the forecast.<\/p>\n

    What can die-life records show and not show?<\/h2>\n

    A buyer often needs a clear answer to a simpler question: what does this record actually support? A die life estimation register can show a documented history and identify planning assumptions. It must not be mistaken for a warranty, engineering determination, safety review, or supplier commitment.<\/p>\n

    The table below separates evidence from conclusion. That separation helps keep a forecast from becoming an unqualified production or procurement instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Record<\/th>\nWhat it can show<\/th>\nWhat it cannot show alone<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Stated count history<\/td>\nExposure recorded for a defined die, period, and counting basis<\/td>\nRemaining life or part quality at another count<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Good-part and scrap record<\/td>\nReported output status during an identified run<\/td>\nCause of every defect or future scrap rate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Wear or condition record<\/td>\nA stated observation at a date and location<\/td>\nRoot cause, safety status, or replacement need<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Press\/run record<\/td>\nThe stated machine and run context<\/td>\nCorrect setup, safeguarding, or operation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Maintenance record<\/td>\nWhat service was recorded on a stated date<\/td>\nA suitable future maintenance plan<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Toolmaker statement<\/td>\nThe supplier\u2019s stated forecast, scope, and basis<\/td>\nAn independently validated life value<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Refurbishment or replacement quote<\/td>\nStated commercial scope, timing, and price basis<\/td>\nTotal project cost, operational result, or legal obligation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Die life estimation does not answer \u201cCan the press run safely?\u201d or \u201cShould we accept a warranty?\u201d Those are different preguntas<\/a> for qualified press-safety, tooling, process, quality, legal, and commercial review.<\/p>\n

    A forecast has boundaries.<\/p>\n

    How should replacement and refurbishment planning be documented?<\/h2>\n

    Replacement or refurbishment planning begins with comparable scopes, not a single cost number. A buyer can record actual supplier quotes and internal project inputs without claiming that one route is lower cost or appropriate.<\/p>\n

    For die life estimation planning, create a scenario register. State the die\/configuration, planning purpose, currency, date, source document, included work, excluded work, quantity\/count assumptions, production assumptions, and owner of each unresolved item. Do not convert incomplete quotes into a universal cost-per-part figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Planning field<\/th>\nRecord source<\/th>\nWhat it supports<\/th>\nLimitation to state<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Scenario and trigger<\/td>\nDated internal planning record and condition\/history reference<\/td>\nWhy a scenario is being evaluated<\/td>\nIt is not a replacement decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Die and part revision<\/td>\nControlled tool and product records<\/td>\nWhich configuration the quote concerns<\/td>\nEarlier evidence may not apply after a change<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Refurbishment or replacement scope<\/td>\nSupplier\/toolmaker quote and stated deliverables<\/td>\nWhat work is included in the offered scope<\/td>\nScope may omit setup, inspection, logistics, or other work<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Commercial basis<\/td>\nCurrency, date, quantity, payment\/delivery assumptions, exclusions<\/td>\nWhether quotes are comparable<\/td>\nIt is not a total-cost conclusion without full inputs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Quality and qualification activity<\/td>\nStated inspection, trial, validation, or review records<\/td>\nWork that may be required after a tool event<\/td>\nRequirements depend on the project and applicable rules<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Production impact assumptions<\/td>\nDated capacity, run, inventory, or schedule records where available<\/td>\nIssues for the project owner to assess<\/td>\nIt does not prove downtime or supply outcome<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Open issue and owner<\/td>\nEvidence gap, responsible role, target review<\/td>\nWho needs to resolve an uncertainty<\/td>\nIt does not resolve the issue itself<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    A planning record may include non-recurring tooling work, setup, inspection, trial activity, scrap\/rework assumptions, freight, packaging, inventory or holding effects, taxes, and currency only when the source and scope are stated. The absence of an item is not proof that it is zero.<\/p>\n

    Compare the scope first. Die life estimation planning needs comparable technical and commercial inputs.<\/p>\n

    Why is press safety separate from a die-life forecast?<\/h2>\n

    A die life estimation forecast is not a safety assessment. Mechanical press safety involves the press, dies, setup, safeguarding, material handling, part configuration, and production requirements, among other system elements.<\/p>\n

    OSHA states that each mechanical power press should be considered as an individual system, including its tooling or dies, setup, safeguarding, material handling, part configuration, and production requirements. [3] OSHA also states that equipment should be thoroughly inspected and that a maintenance and inspection program must be established and implemented for the machine. [3]<\/p>\n

    Those sources describe U.S. guidance<\/a> and requirements. They do not determine rules for a factory in Porcelana<\/a> or any other jurisdiction. For die life estimation, the safe boundary is clear: do not use a forecast as an instruction to set, maintain, inspect, repair, modify, guard, or operate a press. Use qualified plant safety, press, tooling, and local-compliance professionals for those decisions.<\/p>\n

    Safety is a separate review.<\/p>\n

    Which issues need escalation?<\/h2>\n

    Escalation protects the project when a forecast loses its evidence base. A die life estimation record should name the trigger, preserve the original evidence, and route the issue to the specialist who can assess it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Escalation trigger<\/th>\nWhy it matters<\/th>\nNext review route<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Unknown die identity or revision<\/td>\nThe run and wear history may concern another configuration<\/td>\nTooling and quality review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Changed part, blank, tool material, treatment, or operation<\/td>\nEarlier observed history may no longer be comparable<\/td>\nTooling, process, and quality review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Damage, safety incident, or abnormal machine condition<\/td>\nSafety and tool condition may need immediate qualified assessment<\/td>\nPlant safety and press\/tooling professionals<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Worsening output signal or unexplained defect<\/td>\nThe cause and impact are not established by a count alone<\/td>\nQuality and process review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Missing wear observations or maintenance history<\/td>\nThere is no reliable basis to validate a model or supplier forecast<\/td>\nTooling-owner and supplier documentation review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Incomplete quote or mismatched commercial scope<\/td>\nCost inputs cannot be compared fairly<\/td>\nProcurement and finance review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Warranty, ownership, payment, dispute, or contract issue<\/td>\nLegal and commercial consequences may follow<\/td>\nQualified legal and commercial counsel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Do not infer that a die has reached end of life because a count crosses a generic number. Do not infer that a die remains suitable because an estimate has not reached its stated count. Both conclusions need project-specific evidence and qualified review.<\/p>\n

    Escalate the gap, not the guess.<\/p>\n

    What are the challenges and limitations?<\/h2>\n

    Die life estimation has limits because tool wear is context dependent. Research models can include physical inputs and be useful for study, but the SAE source says that estimation should be correlated with production data, maintenance records, and explicit wear measurements. [2] That requirement limits any generic calculator or threshold.<\/p>\n

    Count data can also be incomplete. A count may reflect strokes, parts, accepted parts, a planned run, or an uncontrolled total. A maintenance record may describe work without documenting the prior condition. A quote may include tooling work but omit qualification, inspection, supply, tax, freight, or other project costs. These gaps should stay visible.<\/p>\n

    Die life estimation guidance cannot provide a universal die life, formula, model coefficient, maintenance interval, refurbishment interval, warranty clause, press-safety procedure, product-quality conclusion, finance decision, legal conclusion, or procurement recommendation. Obtain qualified tooling, process, quality, safety, finance, and legal review as the project requires.<\/p>\n

    The limitation belongs in the record.<\/p>\n

    Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n

    What is die life estimation?<\/h3>\n

    Die life estimation is a project-specific forecast that records an identified die, its conditions, operating history, wear observations, maintenance events, and stated end criteria for qualified review. It is not a guaranteed parts-per-die value.<\/p>\n

    Can I calculate die life from a production count alone?<\/h3>\n

    No. A production count can document stated exposure, but it does not identify the wear mechanism, tool condition, material\/process changes, defect cause, safety status, or remaining life.<\/p>\n

    What evidence supports die life estimation?<\/h3>\n

    Useful evidence includes controlled die and part revisions, stated material and operation records, dated run and good-part counts, scrap\/quality records, condition observations, maintenance history, and a defined forecast basis. The relevant records depend on the actual project.<\/p>\n

    Do all metal-stamping dies have the same expected life?<\/h3>\n

    No. The cited research evaluates defined automotive-stamping casos<\/a> and inputs. Die life estimation depends on the particular die, part, blank material, operation, press\/process context, treatment, observed condition, and history.<\/p>\n

    Does high-strength steel automatically determine die life?<\/h3>\n

    No. The SAE technical paper says the use of high-strength and advanced high-strength steels has effects on die wear, but it does not create one shared life value for every die or project. [2]<\/p>\n

    Can a supplier\u2019s die-life statement be treated as a warranty?<\/h3>\n

    No. A supplier statement can record a stated forecast and its assumptions. Warranty and contractual effect require qualified commercial and legal review of the actual documents.<\/p>\n

    What is the difference between good-part count and press strokes?<\/h3>\n

    Good-part count records parts accepted under stated criteria. Press strokes record a machine activity count. They may not match because scrap, rework, setup, trials, and counting rules can differ.<\/p>\n

    How should I compare refurbishment and replacement quotes?<\/h3>\n

    Compare the same die and product revision, stated scope, currency, quote date, included work, excluded work, delivery and quality assumptions, and open items. A lower single line item does not establish a lower total project cost.<\/p>\n

    Does a maintenance record prove remaining die life?<\/h3>\n

    No. A maintenance record shows stated service or observation at a point in time. It does not by itself predict the next wear event or establish a service interval.<\/p>\n

    Can an engineer use a wear model from published research directly?<\/h3>\n

    Published research can inform a specialist\u2019s an\u00e1lisis<\/a>, but the Qiao study is based on a defined automotive-panel case and inputs. The SAE paper says estimates should be correlated with production, maintenance, and explicit wear data. [1] [2]<\/p>\n

    Is die life estimation a press safety assessment?<\/h3>\n

    No. OSHA describes mechanical presses as individual systems involving the press, dies, setup, safeguarding, material handling, part configuration, and production requirements. Use qualified professionals for plant safety and applicable local requirements. [3]<\/p>\n

    When should a buyer escalate a die-life issue?<\/h3>\n

    Escalate when the die or product revision is unclear, inputs changed, output signals worsen, damage or safety issues occur, wear\/maintenance records are missing, or commercial and contract questions arise. Preserve the source records for the qualified review.<\/p>\n

    Referencias<\/h2>\n

    [1] Qiao et al., A Study on Die Wear Prediction for Automobile Panels Stamping Based on Dynamic Model, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology<\/em> (2018)<\/a><\/p>\n

    [2] SAE International, Die Wear Estimation in Automotive Sheet Metal Stamping, Technical Paper 2013-01-1171<\/a><\/p>\n

    [3] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Mechanical Power Presses: Press Safety Considerations<\/a><\/p>\n

    [4] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR 1910.217 Mechanical Power Presses<\/a><\/p>\n

    Related reading<\/h2>\n

    Continue with tool maintenance schedule factory<\/a>, tooling cost per unit calculation<\/a>, tooling storage audit China<\/a>, verify pilot run machine suitability<\/a>, and supplier lead time variability cushion<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Use die life estimation records to connect tool history, wear evidence, service events, and replacement-planning assumptions without false certainty.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_internal_links_processed":["1"],"_uag_page_assets":["a:9:{s:3:\"css\";s:263:\".uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-desktop) !important}@media (max-width: 976px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-tablet) !important}}@media (max-width: 767px){.uag-blocks-common-selector{z-index:var(--z-index-mobile) !important}}\n\";s:2:\"js\";s:0:\"\";s:18:\"current_block_list\";a:15:{i:0;s:11:\"core\/search\";i:1;s:10:\"core\/group\";i:2;s:12:\"core\/heading\";i:3;s:17:\"core\/latest-posts\";i:4;s:20:\"core\/latest-comments\";i:5;s:13:\"core\/archives\";i:6;s:15:\"core\/categories\";i:8;s:25:\"greenshift-blocks\/heading\";i:9;s:22:\"greenshift-blocks\/text\";i:10;s:14:\"core\/paragraph\";i:12;s:18:\"core\/legacy-widget\";i:13;s:17:\"core\/social-links\";i:15;s:16:\"core\/social-link\";i:16;s:21:\"trp\/language-switcher\";i:17;s:9:\"core\/html\";}s:8:\"uag_flag\";b:0;s:11:\"uag_version\";s:10:\"1792227610\";s:6:\"gfonts\";a:0:{}s:10:\"gfonts_url\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"gfonts_files\";a:0:{}s:14:\"uag_faq_layout\";b:0;}"],"_uag_css_file_name":["uag-css-3238.css"]},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supplier-verification"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"trp-custom-language-flag":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/author\/admin\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Use die life estimation records to connect tool history, wear evidence, service events, and replacement-planning assumptions without false certainty.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3238"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3465,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3238\/revisions\/3465"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sourcingall.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3238"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}