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.

@OliverBaker0450 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups

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.

@OliverBaker0450 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.

@LiamBell0664 On my bracket job, filling blanks from memory produced a very persuasive trend. Finding the original fixture sheets made the trend disappear. Not my favourite chart.

@OliverAdams0102 Why doesn't matching the required shape in the fixture establish that the assembly meets the dimensional requirement?

Because the required inspection condition may be after release. Holding a shape under restraint doesn't establish the shape the assembly takes without that restraint.

I've had the drawing owner confirm the released inspection condition and its reference supports. Quality is adding those requirements to the sheet so the measurement state is explicit.

That establishes the intended inspection basis, but the measurement conditions of unlabelled historical results still remain unknown

I'll preserve the uncertainty on those historical entries. Establishing the intended condition gives the review a basis without supplying missing facts about past measurements.

@OliverBaker0450 For the linked samples, add incoming fit-up observations beside released results. Your welding engineer can assess any association within the documented process conditions.

I've found varying incoming fit-up in the traceable records for assemblies that changed shape after release. The association is visible, although it doesn't establish causation.

Give your welding engineer both the pattern and its limits. A useful association doesn't need dressing up as a diagnosis to deserve attention.

@OliverAdams0102 Could adding restraint prevent the movement seen after release, or is that an unreliable assumption?

More restraint can change the behaviour, but doesn't guarantee the released dimensions. Have the fixture specialist and welding engineer assess restraint, thermal movement and release together.

I'll leave the restraint change for the design review. Would proposed welding-sequence changes belong in the material sent to the welding engineer as well?