Our proposed FR10 inspection nest touches several surfaces of a drilled aluminium angle bracket. CAD looks tidy. My bench samples do not all sit the same way. How do I check whether the locating scheme conflicts before someone approves a stronger clamp?
Which contacts establish the intended datums, and which are only guides or clamp reactions? Ask the designer to distinguish them on the drawing before deciding that more force will help every surface make contact.
Keep the samples identified and compare repeat placements of one bracket as well as different brackets. If one piece seats differently each time, that is not the same observation as several pieces consistently sitting differently. You want to separate those before rebuilding the nest.
Will the person loading the nest be in that discussion, since they may be supplying a particular push or tilt that nobody has written into the tidy CAD picture?
That is useful context, Grace, but the operator cannot settle datum intent by describing what makes a bracket feel seated. The designer still needs to define the intended location and how the clamp should maintain it.
Record the as-found seating and part condition first, within the approved manual inspection arrangement. Burrs, contamination or relevant part variation may explain a contact difference without the whole locating concept being wrong. Equally, removing one bit of debris would not prove every remaining contact is necessary.
Can the designer explain which freedoms each locating contact constrains? That should expose redundant or conflicting intentions more clearly than asking whether the nest has too many pads in the abstract.
That changes how to read the sketch, but it does not establish the guides actually clear the part after location. Ask for the relevant tolerance and clearance comparison with your real bracket variation.
One identified bracket contacts a guide while seated. I have recorded that observation; we have not yet compared its dimensions with the intended clearance.
Then do not remove the guide on that observation alone; the designer needs to establish whether the part, guide or intended clearance differs from the requirement.
Who will carry the eventual contact definitions into the loading instruction? A corrected design can still be used badly if the handover tells the operator to force contact at a feature meant only to guide entry.
Tooling and the trainer will update it together after the clearance review. Stronger clamping is not approved, and the bench fit remains an open design question.
Please retain the identified awkward bracket for the revised comparison. It is the useful part here, even if a nicer specimen makes the next demonstration easier to photograph.