The former operator describes straightening the flange after removal. The final numbers were recorded afterwards. I have no numerical reading before straightening.

Then the final sheet can't tell you how much the original fixture missed by. It tells you what came out of the corrected route.

Do the old records identify which bracket drawing was used? A changed requirement could matter before you compare those numbers with today's parts.

Two drawing revisions appear in the folder. Only the later one is named on the final sheet. I am separating the earlier notes until I can establish their use.

Could the former operator identify an untouched sample? That might help the process team, though I wouldn't assume anything on the accepted-parts shelf escaped correction

He cannot identify an untouched one. The retained examples were selected after final acceptance. We cannot use them as uncorrected evidence.

Who proposed more restraint, and have they seen that distinction? I'd want the new fixture designer to see what is missing before inheriting the old answer

Our internal planning note proposed it. The fixture designer had only received the final sheet. I have sent the operator's description and the missing-measurement issue too.

Good. Let them disagree with the old method. The correction may have been the cheapest available fix at the time, not a design requirement handed down forever.

What does quality need for a new comparison? I mean the stages where readings should be taken, not another reading from an already corrected sample.

Quality and process are defining incoming, released and any corrected measurements for a current-part trial. No trial results yet. I have withdrawn the extra-restraint suggestion from our requirements list.

Will the inspection supports be defined in that trial too? Otherwise you may still struggle to explain differences between stages even when the part identifiers match