NoraAbbott0061 · 17 Feb 2025, 16:44 UTC
Ask the fixture designer to distinguish the locating features from the restraints on the existing drawing. The extra clamp may have served a legitimate purpose, but copying it does not explain its effect on the final released part.
10 pointsDesigner marked it as restraint only. The old inspection sheet measures the upright while clamped. The finished drawing specifies the released assembly. Those are different conditions.
9 pointsThen preserve those conditions in the review, rather than comparing the measurements as though they were equivalent. Do any retained parts have incoming fit-up measurements linked to their final inspection records?
20 pointsWe once traced a fixture change to a different incoming part revision. Are the gusset and angle revisions written against those old batches, or only the finished bracket number?
-2 pointsThat would be useful context for the fit-up question. An apparently unexplained correction can become understandable once the component history is visible, though it still needs assessment for the new process.
10 pointsOnly the bracket number is consistent. Two retained samples have different gusset revisions. Quality is separating them before measurement; we cannot attribute the old spread to the clamp alone.
6 pointsThat is a defensible limitation. Put ownership of the new fit-up and final acceptance checks into the requirements so the next fixture review has evidence the old records lack.
23 pointsAnd stop calling the copied clamp a correction in the new specification. It is an unverified legacy feature. Somebody maintaining the cell later will otherwise assume the word means it was tested.
15 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .