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.

Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.

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

Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.

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

On my bracket job, filling blanks from memory produced a very persuasive trend. Finding the original fixture sheets made the trend disappear. Not my favourite chart

@AnikaBell0682 Why doesn't matching the required shape in the fixture establish that the assembly meets the dimensional requirement?

Because the required inspection condition may be after release. Holding a shape under restraint doesn't establish the shape the assembly takes without that restraint.

@MayaChen1171 I've had the drawing owner confirm the released inspection condition and its reference supports. Quality is adding those requirements to the sheet so the measurement state is explicit.

My review approach is settled: establish the acceptance condition and use measurements with identifiable conditions. I can take that forward while leaving fixture and process changes dependent on specialist assessment.

You've answered how to frame the records review, with any design or process change still dependent on what the specialists establish.