I'm reviewing historical records for our planned planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Universal Robots UR5e and a gusseted steel support bracket weldment in a small steel assemblies factory. The notes describe alignment under restraint but dimensions outside the drawing requirement after release.
I'd like to distinguish incoming fit-up, fixture location and final acceptance before carrying an unexplained correction routine into the new cell; no live welding adjustments are involved.
Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.
My sheets contain both restrained and released results, with some conditions unlabelled. Although the drawing specifies the dimension, the inspection procedure doesn't clearly define the supports.
@GraceBrown0929 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.
@NinaCarter1023 Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.
@OliverBaker0450 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
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.
@NinaCarter1023 My review approach is settled: establish the acceptance condition and use measurements with identifiable conditions. I can take that forward while leaving fixture and process changes dependent on specialist assessment.