@EllaAli0207 The sheets mix clamped checks and released measurements. Some don't say which. The drawing has the dimension, but our procedure leaves the support condition vague

@AdaAli0216 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

@EllaAli0207 Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.

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

Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps

@AdaAli0216 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.

I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.

@AnikaBennett0769 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.

The drawing owner confirms released inspection on specified reference supports. Quality is putting that condition into the sheet. At least that part won't be guessed