We're planning defining dimensional control for bracket welding with Fairino FR10 on a fabricated gusseted mounting bracket in a small steel assemblies factory. 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.
Compare the specified inspection condition and reference supports with the historical sheets. Do individual measurements identify whether the assembly was restrained or released?
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.
Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.
@SofiaBarnes0543 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
@YasminBell0615 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.
I can describe the measurement uncertainty better, although the cause of released variation remains open. Any fixture change still needs a specialist assessment supported by the inspection basis and traceable records.