The retained samples can be identified. The old sheet cannot link every exposure to a particular blank, so those rows won't become paired measurements after the fact.

Also establish what surface the exposure was measured from. If people chose different chuck features, a new overall-length column will not repair the comparison.

Have the setter show the measurement method to whoever records it. Not a running demonstration. An agreed, authorised setup check so the reference and access are understood before anyone starts collecting more numbers.

Keep the chuck arrangement and stop condition identified in the new sheet. Maintenance needs to know which setup those measurements describe, especially if someone has changed jaws between the old samples and the proposed study.

The setter and quality have defined the reference and recording method. They found the old exposure notes used two different descriptions of the reference face. We cannot reconstruct which description applied to every row.

Then retain those rows as historical observations, not a seating-variation calculation.

For new data, repeat the same identified blank as well as comparing different blanks. Otherwise a relationship between overall length and exposure can still hide inconsistent seating within each blank.

Would the same person do every repeat? That's easier to organise, but later you may want to know whether the loading instruction transfers to another setter too.

Quality is starting with a bounded same-setter comparison under the agreed procedure, then a second-setter check. Same identified blank repeats are included. No automatic motion is part of it.

Record cleaning or any change to the seating arrangement between observations. Don't let an intervention appear as an unexplained good repeat.

Have they agreed how measurement repeatability will be distinguished from loading variation?

Yes. Quality checked repeat measurement without reloading first. The new paired observations now show different overall blank lengths, but one identified blank also changes exposure after reloading beyond the measurement variation seen in that check.

That prevents an all-stock explanation. It does not yet tell you why the seating changes, and it certainly doesn't justify adding a robot offset to make the exposed ends line up.

Did the setter note anything different on those reloads, even if it seemed too ordinary to matter?

Bring those observations to the responsible machining engineer before changing the stop or grip arrangement. The measurement study isn't authorisation for a different chuck setup.

The setter noted inconsistent contact with the intended seating reference, but no cause has been established. That note is attached to the measured reloads. The machining engineer has the findings; nobody has altered the stop to chase the exposure number.

Thank you. That is the distinction I wanted between a recorded observation and an adjustment.

Keep the stock-length range in the findings too. Discovering a seating issue doesn't make the independent blank variation disappear.

Both are in the review: measured stock variation and a separate repeat-seating discrepancy. The second-setter work is paused until the engineer defines the next check. We've improved the evidence, not cleared automatic loading.