I'm trying to keep the old bracket correction from sneaking into our UR5e proposal as free robot capability. Restrained alignment looks good, released dimensions fail, then the route says corrected. Where would you start a cheap review of the fit-up, location and acceptance evidence?
I'd separate the recorded stages first, with the drawing revision and measuring condition beside each one, because a final pass after extra work doesn't tell you what came out of the weld fixture untouched.
The final pass is definitely after correction. I can establish that order from the route, but not how much changed or which individual brackets needed it.
Our equipment reviews sometimes found the operation in a separate bench instruction rather than the main route. I'd ask fabrication whether such a document exists before treating the two-word note as all the history available.
Grace, did the separate instruction identify the affected parts, or only describe the general method? Those would help different questions in Oscar's review.
Only the general method in the case I mean. It explained the work but did not recover which historical parts went through it, so we kept that quantity uncertain.
Fabrication has no separate instruction in the retained folder. A former operator remembers bringing the flange back after release, but that doesn't define a permitted method for this proposal.
Keep their account as an account, Oscar, alongside the record gap; useful context isn't the same as a controlled instruction or a measured before-and-after result.
Naomi, released support is not identified yet. Sam, no incoming measurements found. I've listed those gaps with the correction method and count instead of offering a guessed savings figure.
That is enough to explain why the estimate remains provisional, though not enough to define the process; the next study needs fabrication and quality to agree those stages on current identified assemblies.