The setter checked fixture setup at the start of the job; it does not say each bracket was measured under restraint, although our lesson table makes it look that way.

Then show the setup check once at job level and leave individual pre-weld observations unknown where they were not recorded; eight copies of a tick are very productive stationery, but not eight measurements.

Keep the released spacing results against the actual bracket identities, so correcting the setup column does not lose the genuine failure that started this review.

Were these eight ordinary consecutive brackets, or a selected teaching group? I would avoid deriving a correction rate until that is clear.

Selected for the lesson, Farah, not a run of eight consecutive brackets; David, the individual released readings and any linked correction entries are staying with their own identities.

Who will observe the incoming fit-up and seating when you collect new examples? That seems to be the missing part, rather than another way to label the old table.

Luis, agreed, but fixing the old lesson now still matters; otherwise the next observer will try to reproduce a measurement that nobody actually made.

Both jobs can proceed. The revised lesson can say what is unknown, while the planned observation defines which person records each stage.

The tutor has replaced the repeated ticks with the single setup entry, and fabrication and quality are defining the individual checks for an ordinary observed group; no new measurements added to the old examples.

Include the support and measured feature at every check, because the next table needs more than a row of named stages to make its readings comparable.

Has the fixture designer received the corrected lesson table too? I would not want the purchasing version corrected while the design baseline still contains those copied ticks.