The failure sheet names flange angle. The pass sheet says checked after correction, with no feature named. Its photo shows an extra block beneath the bracket.

Can the inspector identify that block and explain its purpose? I would not use the two readings as a before-and-after measure until the feature and checking method are matched.

Is the block in the checking-equipment list? That might identify it without relying on the photograph.

And who entered the correction, Caleb, or is that another unsigned note you're being asked to turn into a reliable process?

Anika, the equipment list identifies the block as part of a later checking arrangement. Clara, correction is signed by the workshop lead, but the operation itself is not described.

The workshop lead can describe the correction route while quality checks the measurement change; neither needs to wait for the other to begin.

Was the later checking arrangement introduced because the earlier one was unsuitable, or for another bracket version? The equipment identity gives you someone a concrete question to answer.

Please leave the correction cost in the study as unknown for now; a signed entry is better than nothing, but it doesn't tell you the labour disappears with a robot.

Link the block identification to the photo. Saves the next person repeating the stores search.

The photo is linked. Quality has not established whether the first check used the right support, and the workshop lead has not reconstructed the correction method. Our study now states both gaps instead of claiming a measured improvement.