MayaAbbott0040 · 14 Jan 2026, 19:56 UTC
Try the original check sheets and whoever used the jig before drawing conclusions from the summary; you might recover its identity without repeating the whole study.
14 pointsI'd be wary of choosing whichever pass makes the proposal look good. We had a planning figure travel through three presentations after its explanation vanished. By the third meeting everyone thought someone else had checked it. Different process, same annoying paperwork trick.
15 pointsFound the sheet. First pass is fit-up while restrained. Final pass belongs to the released bracket on the separate checking jig. Still no description of the correction between them.
9 pointsDoes the person who did the correction remember what they were handed? I'd ask with one actual bracket record in front of you, not send them a spreadsheet and hope for a memoir.
3 pointsSetter remembers the operation, not which of these brackets needed it. Useful explanation of the work. Not a count I can price.
17 pointsThen the final check can stay linked to its bracket and jig, while the correction workload remains unknown; the missing count doesn't make the released check disappear.
2 pointsAgreed. Quality identified the jig and applicable drawing revision. We've removed the guessed correction allowance from the FR5 comparison and asked for a short observed run of the current method.
22 pointsInclude who waits for the checking jig. The actual correction may be quick and the queue horrible. Both matter if somebody has promised this job will fit comfortably between their other jobs.
17 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .