A simple stage table would help: incoming fit-up, restrained check, first released check, correction and final disposition. Leave missing entries empty rather than borrowing the later result to complete an earlier stage.

The original restrained entry is a visual alignment tick; released failure has measured values, and correction is named between that sheet and final acceptance.

Can the correction owner explain what work that name covers? I have seen linked records distinguish direct passes from actual bench correction, but a route label alone would not establish its method or duration here.

Also compare measurement supports and datums between the two numerical checks. You can establish a before-and-after correction pair only if the records really describe comparable conditions.

Does the same bracket identity appear on those sheets?

Yes, same bracket, but the released-failure sheet names one checking fixture and final acceptance names another. I have asked quality why.

That difference needs an explanation, not an automatic rejection of the pair. Different supports can implement the same specified measurement, or they can impose different conditions; the fixture references let quality check which happened.

Meanwhile the correction owner can still describe the work performed. That does not have to wait for the dimensional comparison, provided the two findings are not merged prematurely.

The correction owner confirms a bench straightening operation for this bracket. No isolated duration was logged; the labour entry covers the whole batch route.

Then do not divide that total into a confident correction time. Retain the known operation and unknown duration separately in the estimate.

Quality found the first checking fixture was pressing the free leg against a stop, unlike the final method. Those values are not a comparable before-and-after correction pair.

That invalidates the numerical comparison, not the evidence that straightening took place.

For the current study, quality can define the released measurement condition before any correction and retain it afterwards. Keep incoming fit-up and the proposed locating scheme alongside that study, so the new cell is not assessed solely from final acceptance.

Study scope now names that common released method and separately records correction work. The old comparison is withdrawn; we still know a bench operation happened, not how much dimensional change it caused.

Keep that distinction with the cost review. A clearer measurement plan is useful, but it has not yet supplied the missing correction duration or shown that the proposed fixture removes the operation.