We're planning preparing robotic welding of gusseted brackets with Fairino FR10 on a gusseted angle-bracket assembly in a small steel assemblies factory.
Our old inspection notes say it looks aligned while restrained, then falls outside the drawing requirement after release.
I want to untangle fit-up, fixture location and final inspection before our new cell inherits an unexplained correction routine.
This is a records review, not live welding adjustment.
@NoahBell0629 Compare the specified inspection condition and reference supports with the historical sheets. Do individual measurements identify whether the assembly was restrained or released?
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.
@NoahBell0629 Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
@BethBennett0759 Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.
@NoahBennett0716 That's a fair correction. State grouping addresses only one source of difference; the review also needs support conditions and fixture and process references, with missing information explicitly identified.
@BethBennett0759 Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.
@NoahBell0629 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.
@BethBennett0759 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.
@MinaChan1120 The fixture decision remains open because the current measurement evidence doesn't justify a revision intended to establish acceptable released dimensions.