We're planning planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR5 on a gusseted steel support bracket weldment in a robotic welding project review. Our old inspection notes say it looks aligned while restrained, then falls outside the drawing requirement after release. I want to untangle fit-up, fixture location and final inspection before our new cell inherits an unexplained correction routine.
This is a records review, not live welding adjustment.
Compare the specified inspection condition and reference supports with the historical sheets. Do individual measurements identify whether the assembly was restrained or released?
@TobyArcher0405 The sheets mix clamped checks and released measurements. Some don't say which. The drawing has the dimension, but our procedure leaves the support condition vague.
@IsaacAdams0172 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.
That's a fair correction. State grouping addresses only one source of difference; the review also needs support conditions and fixture and process references, with missing information explicitly identified.
Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps.
Keep the revision unconfirmed in the data. A separate note can preserve the recollection as a lead without presenting it as an established fixture reference.
I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.
@LeahAllen0321 I know how to frame the review now: an explicit acceptance condition and measurements whose conditions are identifiable. That answers my records question; any fixture or process change still depends on the specialists' assessment.