I sat with our bracket inspector to understand an old final-pass sheet. The bracket had been checked after release, sent for correction, then checked again. Only the last result reached the sheet used in our FR10 proposal. The inspector remembered the extra trip because she had to find someone available to do it. Nobody timed that wait or the correction.
I can see why the final result was recorded. I cannot see why the estimate treats it as the result directly out of the fixture. I need a comparison that includes the work between those two points.
Start with what sends it for correction. The person doing the next trial needs a clear released check and decision, not a box called rework that everybody fills differently after the batch.
The inspector uses the released bracket against the drawing requirement. The old estimate combined that check with final acceptance under one inspection allowance. It did not include a correction operation.
Keep the same bracket identity through both checks. I mean the actual piece, not just its batch, because the extent of correction may vary and a final pass alone won't describe that variation.
Amara, a fabrication technician does it, and availability varies with other work. Anna, the proposed trial will keep individual bracket identities. Mark and Hazel, we have assigned the entries at each handover rather than one person completing everything later.
Mina's question matters. Paired readings can describe the present process well while still being a poor prediction of a different fixture or fit-up. Keep that distinction in the estimate when the trial scope is agreed.
Yes, Reece. It tells James there was a correction route worth investigating. It just doesn't supply the missing time or prove the proposed fixture will need the same amount.
Mina, current incoming parts are the same revision, but the proposed fixture changes two locating contacts. We will study the existing process first and keep the proposed-fixture trial separate. Thank you Julia; that describes the useful limit of the old sheet.
Then keep the technician's waiting time separate from the correction work. Otherwise somebody may try to improve the fixture to solve a queue, or improve the staffing and claim the bracket stopped distorting.
Have the inspector and technician tried one completed example of the traveller together? That may expose a handover neither thinks belongs to them before the comparison starts.
They tried an example and found the return check had no owner after correction. That is assigned now. The study has not run, and the FR10 estimate carries the correction work as unresolved rather than zero.