Cannot cost our UR5e bracket route from the final pass sheet

Jig card says touches upright, no dimension; final sheet records flange height, and the bench has an old height gauge beside it.

Who used that bench? A height gauge could have been checking or sorting parts, not necessarily correcting them. The unexplained step needs a description before a new fixture is credited with removing it.

Keep fit-up and released acceptance separate while you ask. We have had to withdraw an in-fixture pass claim on another bracket review because the photo showed restraint, not a comparable dimensional result.

I would also ask whether every bracket visited the bench or only selected ones, because a final average can hide both the selection and the extra work.

Former operator says all went there for a height check, then some were sent to a separate correction station; the route card only records the final inspection after they returned.

That is two missing operations in the cost, then: checking every part and correcting a subset. Do you have any record of how that subset was chosen?

Nathan, two operations missing from the written route, yes. We don't yet know whether either cost was hidden elsewhere in the old estimate.

Fair correction. I meant missing from the route we have, not proven absent from every old costing sheet.

Sarah, see whether the old check instruction names the drawing revision and supports. Finding the gauge is helpful, but we still need to know what it was set up to measure.

Found the check instruction for revision B, using the mounting face on a support block; our proposed bracket is revision D, and the support block itself has no identifier.

What changed between B and D? A familiar bracket name is not enough to decide whether the old support or correction has any place in the new route.

Gusset profile and one flange dimension changed, so I have kept the old instruction as history rather than a ready-made method for the new trial.

That is the right boundary. Let fabrication and quality define the current released check, with the fixture designer involved where the locating contacts matter. No need to force revision D through revision B's explanation.

I'd still ask the operator what the correction involved. It may reveal why the old process needed intervention, even if you cannot copy its method or allowance to the new bracket.

Lucy, agreed. History can explain a cost risk without becoming the instructions for the new cell.

Operator remembers correcting the flange height but cannot give the selection limit from memory; I have named that gap instead of borrowing the final acceptance limit and assuming it was the same.

Keep correction and first released inspection visible in the proposed trial, even if the expectation is that no correction will be needed. Otherwise the trial can only confirm its own optimistic route.

And record the incoming component condition on that trial. A different fit-up can change the question before the assembly ever reaches the fixture.

Did fabrication and quality agree who owns the new method, Sarah? Interested whether the old gauge turned out useful or remains only an unidentified bit of history.