The UR5e bracket proposal has a very good acceptance rate, according to a sheet completed after correction. The earlier jig notes say aligned under clamp and nothing measurable after release.
I want the fixture review to explain the work between those two records before someone deletes the correction station from the layout. Where would you start with this paperwork?
Find whether the route identifies which brackets went through correction and what was checked before it. Keep the current layout allowance while those stages are being separated.
The traveller sends the whole batch to that station. No individual correction marks. Final sheet is drawing D, and it doesn't say whether every bracket needed work.
Ask the station operator what the route instruction meant in practice. Passing through a station may mean inspection with correction as needed, rather than correction on every part.
He checked every bracket and corrected some flange angles. No count retained. The good final sheet won't give us that missing labour figure, however long we stare at it.
A current trial can record inspected and corrected quantities separately, alongside incoming fit-up and untouched released dimensions. That would give the estimator something usable without inventing the old rate.
Anika, production engineering owns the allowance. Will, fabrication and inspection are writing that trial. Tooling won't be approved on the old final sheet alone.
C is the gauge revision. Inspection confirmed it was checked against part drawing D. Its result is still after any correction, so that doesn't fill the earlier measurement gap.
That settles the label question. Will the new trial also capture the component revisions and their condition before fit-up? Otherwise it may compare a new assembly with the old route in name only.
Yes. Current component revisions are listed in the draft, with fit-up and released checks separate. No trial results yet. The correction station stays in our provisional floor plan.