We're planning planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR10 on a gusseted steel support bracket weldment in a precision fabrication quality department. Our old inspection notes say it looks aligned while restrained, then falls outside the drawing requirement after release.
I want to untangle fit-up, fixture location and final inspection before our new cell inherits an unexplained correction routine. This is a records review, not live welding adjustment
Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.
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
Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
@HenryBarnes0525 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.
@HenryBarnes0525 I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.
@JonasBaker0459 I know how to frame the review now: an explicit acceptance condition and measurements whose conditions are identifiable. That answers my records question; any fixture or process change still depends on the specialists' assessment