Why are two bracket revisions sharing one correction note?

JackAllen0341 · 31 Oct 2025, 21:43 UTC

Closed
JA
JackAllen0341
I found the old straightening note tucked behind the drawing for our proposed FR5 bracket fixture. Then noticed the sample numbers on it belong to an earlier bracket revision. The current folder has restrained checks and final passes, but no measurements between release and correction. Which comparison should we make before this becomes the new operator's mystery job?

12 replies

AM
AmyAbbott0032
Replying to JackAllen0341

Start with what changed between revisions. On another bracket review here the contact face was the important question. Keep that old note identified, but don't assume it describes the current parts.

23 points
JA
JackAllen0341
Replying to AmyAbbott0032

The gusset moved and the foot hole callout changed. Fixture identification is absent on the old note. Current restrained checks refer to drawing F.

23 points
BE
BethCarter1020
Replying to JackAllen0341

Then you cannot use the old correction time as a measured allowance for F. It still tells you to ask about extra work. Find the current process route before buying a new gauge to explain an old one.

12 points
AA
AaronBarnes0523
Replying to JackAllen0341

Could the person doing the correction identify which brackets they handle now? That might connect the route sheet to the work without guessing from the folder order.

14 points
LI
LiamChen1186
Replying to JackAllen0341

And is correction included in the proposed price?

6 points
JA
JackAllen0341
Replying to LiamChen1186

Aaron, the operator confirms current F brackets reach their bench, but only some. Liam, the estimate includes no correction. We need paired before-and-after measurements, not the old average.

8 points
AM
AmyAbbott0032
Replying to JackAllen0341

Keep incoming fit-up in that paired study too. Otherwise you learn which F brackets need correction without learning whether they started from comparable parts and seating.

12 points
BE
BethCarter1020
Replying to AmyAbbott0032

Amy, yes, and record the measurement supports. I have seen an attractive before-and-after chart compare a bracket held flat in a fixture with one standing free. It answered less than the caption promised.

17 points
LI
LiamChen1186
Replying to JackAllen0341

Who signs off removing that labour allowance later?

9 points
AA
AaronBarnes0523
Replying to LiamChen1186

I would ask fabrication and quality together, Liam. The person estimating needs their process decision, not just an instruction to make the number smaller.

11 points
JA
JackAllen0341
Replying to AmyAbbott0032

Fabrication and quality now own the current-revision study. Estimator has added a provisional correction allowance rather than borrowing the old measured time. Thanks Amy; checking revisions stopped us starting with the wrong samples.

20 points
BE
BethCarter1020
Replying to JackAllen0341

Keep that provisional wording when the estimate travels. Someone reading only the total should not be told the correction operation has already been characterised.

6 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .