I'm reviewing a milled-bracket nest for planned FR10 loading. CAD shows plenty of surface contacts, but the bench samples seat differently. A stronger clamp is being suggested. I want the locating scheme checked first. Where should I begin without assuming either the parts or the fixture must be wrong?
Ask the designer what each contact is intended to constrain and which part datums govern the inspection. Many contacts can conflict, but their count alone does not prove that they do.
Check the physical samples as well. Burrs, damage and contamination can change seating, and nominal CAD doesn't establish that the actual bracket geometry is within requirements.
Compare repeat placements of one identified bracket before comparing different brackets, under the approved manual inspection arrangement. That gives you a way to separate repeat seating from part-to-part variation without immediately rebuilding the nest.
I've found the person doing the loading can explain a preparation step nobody put on the drawing. Invite them into that comparison, without deciding in advance that their method caused the difference.
Keep the contact observations beside those identities. If both parts are acceptable, the nest still needs to accommodate the permitted variation rather than select its favourite sample.
That distinction also avoids quietly removing the awkward part from the comparison record. Retain its measured condition and reason for exclusion if inspection rejects it.
Both are within the checked requirements. Designer has identified two competing contacts and is proposing a revised location scheme. No revised tool yet.
Will the revised scheme keep the useful loading-guide function? I would want that explained separately from whichever final locating contact is changed.
Include the intended inspection datums in that comparison too. Consistent seating matters because it supports the required measurement, not merely because the bracket stops rocking visibly.