DavidCarter1041 · 3 Mar 2026, 14:48 UTC
Do not join them on that number alone. Look for the original batch or inspection reference before calling either result a correction outcome.
8 pointsDo the sheets have different drawing revisions? That might narrow the search, though I would not use it as an identity by itself.
12 pointsOur stores numbers once restarted on each job. Did fabrication number samples locally within a batch, David, rather than give every bracket a unique identity?
21 pointsAsk the people who wrote them, if they are available; the numbering convention may be simpler than the mystery the archive has made of it.
6 pointsAnd keep their recollection separate from an actual batch match.
13 pointsLucy, yes, fabrication restarted at one for each job; Aaron, both sheets name the same drawing revision, so that has not narrowed it, but the inspector is looking for the original inspection-book entries.
19 pointsSame revision is useful. Still not the same bracket.
6 pointsThis is where I would resist making a clever spreadsheet merge. Put the unresolved pair in a small separate list. Otherwise someone sorts the main sheet and forgets that bracket 7 was only a guess
11 pointsDoes each released check identify its measured feature and datum, David, so that recovering the batch would actually give you a comparable result?
5 pointsEmma Adams, we kept a note against each unmatched stores entry for that reason. A separate list helped us investigate, but the main sheet still needed to say why no result was linked.
9 pointsAgree with Isaac. Whoever inherits the costing sheet needs to see the gap without opening a second file or finding David.
14 pointsEmma Bell, both released checks use the same defined hole-position method; the inspection book now places them in different orders, so they are two brackets, not a failed-and-corrected pair.
21 pointsUseful find. Does either order have its own correction entry, or has that part simply vanished from the copies you were given?
11 pointsIsaac and Sofia, agreed. I meant a small investigation list, not a place to hide the uncertainty. The main sheet should say unmatched until the link is established
12 pointsAmara, the failed bracket's order has a correction entry but no recovered final result; the passing bracket belongs to another order and never needed that correction, so I've removed the supposed before-and-after comparison.
16 pointsThat is worth retaining in the review. You found a false comparison, even though the first bracket's final disposition is still missing.
19 pointsAnd the new sheet needs order plus bracket identity from fabrication onward. Then stores and inspection can preserve the link instead of trying to reconstruct it after everyone has moved on.
6 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .