@BrunoChan1061 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.

Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.

@BrunoChan1061 Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.

@ReeceAbbott0036 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.

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.

@ElenaCarter1036 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.

If the fixture holds it straight, why isn't that already the result we want?

@EmmaAdams0115 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.

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.

@ElenaCarter1036 Useful clarification. It doesn't retroactively tell you how the unlabelled old measurements were taken, though.

@ReeceAbbott0036 I'll keep those old entries flagged. The new definition helps the review; it doesn't magically repair the old paperwork.

Where sample links exist, pair incoming fit-up observations with the released measurements. That allows the welding engineer to assess associations in the context of the documented process.

@BrunoChan1061 I've found varying incoming fit-up in the traceable records for assemblies that changed shape after release. The association is visible, although it doesn't establish causation.

Give your welding engineer both the pattern and its limits. A useful association doesn't need dressing up as a diagnosis to deserve attention.

Would more clamps stop it moving after release? That's what I'd have guessed.

@EmmaAdams0115 More restraint can change the behaviour, but doesn't guarantee the released dimensions. Have the fixture specialist and welding engineer assess restraint, thermal movement and release together.

@BrunoChan1061 I'll leave the restraint change for the design review. Would proposed welding-sequence changes belong in the material sent to the welding engineer as well?

@ElenaCarter1036 Include them as proposals requiring the welding engineer's assessment against applicable process requirements. A fixture-review note shouldn't itself authorise a change to the welding sequence.