@VictorAbbott0011 The sheets mix clamped checks and released measurements. Some don't say which. The drawing has the dimension, but our procedure leaves the support condition vague.

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.

That's a fair correction. State grouping addresses only one source of difference; the review also needs support conditions and fixture and process references, with missing information explicitly identified.

@VictorAbbott0011 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.

Keep the revision unconfirmed in the data. A separate note can preserve the recollection as a lead without presenting it as an established fixture reference.

@VictorAbbott0011 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.

@DanielBell0652 Why doesn't matching the required shape in the fixture establish that the assembly meets the dimensional requirement?

The acceptance requirement may apply to the released assembly. A dimension maintained by fixture restraint doesn't establish what that dimension will be once the restraint is removed.

The drawing owner confirms released inspection on specified reference supports. Quality is putting that condition into the sheet. At least that part won't be guessed.

@IsaacCarter1042 That establishes the intended inspection basis, but the measurement conditions of unlabelled historical results still remain unknown.

I'll keep those old entries flagged. The new definition helps the review; it doesn't magically repair the old paperwork.

@IsaacCarter1042 For the linked samples, add incoming fit-up observations beside released results. Your welding engineer can assess any association within the documented process conditions.

@VictorAbbott0011 The linked records show different fit-up conditions among assemblies that moved after release. It's a lead, but I can't tell whether fit-up caused the movement.

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

@DanielBell0652 Could adding restraint prevent the movement seen after release, or is that an unreliable assumption?

Additional restraint may alter distortion without establishing acceptable released dimensions. The fixture and welding specialists should jointly assess how restraint, thermal movement and release interact.

@VictorAbbott0011 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?