My sheets contain both restrained and released results, with some conditions unlabelled. Although the drawing specifies the dimension, the inspection procedure doesn't clearly define the supports.

Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.

Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.

You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.

Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps.

Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.

I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.

The fixture decision remains open because the current measurement evidence doesn't justify a revision intended to establish acceptable released dimensions.

Understood. The missing measurement basis explains why a fixture revision isn't justified from these records.