HarishAli0228 · 16 Aug 2026, 06:21 UTC
Corrected where, Harish? A robot position, a drawing value, or the inspection report? Those send me to three different people.
15 pointsI'd want the identity of the checked bracket beside that answer. Planning gets summaries saying before and after when the two results sometimes came from different pieces, and then we spend a meeting explaining a change that wasn't measured.
-1 pointsKeep the restrained reading too, even if it isn't the acceptance condition, because it may show what the fixture is holding into place.
4 pointsSame bracket identifier on both sheets. The correction appears in an inspection note, not the robot change log, but the note only says corrected and gives a number.
-3 pointsWho wrote it? I'd ask them before building a theory around a number with no operation attached.
13 pointsCould be a transcription repair then, not somebody moving the part. The original entry matters; don't let them overwrite it when they explain.
-1 pointsMia, possibly, but it could also be a changed reference in the measurement setup. I wouldn't let the absence of a robot log entry turn into a conclusion that the process was untouched.
6 pointsInspector is checking the retained report. I've asked what the number describes and which reference each check used, rather than asking whether the robot was wrong.
13 pointsThat should help; I'd keep the acceptance drawing revision in the packet as well, so the explanation has a defined requirement to answer against.
18 pointsThe note was a correction to the reported datum label. The inspector recovered the original report and says the restrained and released checks referenced different features. So our quoted difference isn't a like-for-like movement measurement.
6 pointsDoes that remove the released-part failure, or only the claim about how much it moved?
8 pointsOnly the movement claim. The released part still misses its acceptance dimension against the specified datum. I nearly bundled those into one correction myself.
9 pointsRight, so the part still fails and the explanation has got narrower. I'd like a matched measurement sequence before blaming spring-back, but I'm not asking you to clamp that failed bracket up again just to satisfy a forum question.
9 pointsAnd from planning's side, please leave the hold on the affected work visible. A corrected inspection note can sound like corrected production when the summary reaches someone who wasn't in the room.
17 pointsElla's distinction belongs in the report heading, not just the discussion beneath it: measurement comparison withdrawn, released dimensional failure retained.
3 pointsQuality has reissued the report with both points and retained the original. It now assigns a matched restrained/released study to the process review; we haven't authorised a fixture or program change from this evidence.
7 pointsUseful finding even without a process fix. The next shift can see why the number changed without assuming the bracket got better.
20 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.