Our planned FR10 bracket welding review has old notes saying aligned under restraint, outside drawing after release. How should I define current fit-up and inspection evidence before an unexplained correction becomes part of the proposal?
Define the incoming component state, intended fixture location and released acceptance method separately, then link their observations on identified current assemblies rather than treat the old final pass as the starting measurement.
Who will perform the current loading and measurement steps? Ask them to review the proposed method before the study, not only receive its result sheet afterwards.
Also separate the wish to eliminate correction from the evidence you will collect. A proposed study should record any extra work honestly; otherwise a good final result may hide the same support burden you are trying to understand.
Ada's right, and record the current component revisions; an older correction account may concern a different assembly even when its drawing title sounds familiar.
Quality and the setter will review the method with the fixture designer. No current study completed; we're identifying the stages and references first.
Will they include the change from restrained to inspection support explicitly? That handling step is where an instruction can lose the physical meaning of its measurement.
Keep the old notes available as a reason for those questions, not as rejected rubbish. Incomplete evidence can still show what must not be omitted from the new process record.
Yes, transfer to the agreed inspection supports is part of the draft. Historical records retained with their gaps, and any correction will have its own stage rather than disappear before acceptance.
Then the next decision is whether the reviewers accept that study scope; there is still no basis here to prescribe a locator offset or a welding adjustment.