That is the gap here. Fixture sketch shows its contacts. Released sheet names the drawing height but no supports. Final acceptance follows correction, without individual identities linking the two measurements.

Are the proposed fixture contacts known to match the old ones? I am asking that in my own review too; a familiar bracket drawing does not establish identical location.

Our historical review found correction time but no pre-correction released reading. We kept the labour in the estimate and the missing measurement in the study request. Victor's sheets may give a different limit, but neither gap should be hidden.

Nina, did that time refer to individual brackets or a batch operation? I would want the basis before converting it into effort per part, even when the operation itself is clearly recorded.

Batch operation in that case. We did not establish an individual-part time from it. It showed labour existed, not a reliable rate for every bracket.

That's worth keeping explicit in the buying conversation. I've seen an unpriced operation treated as absent work, then a rough batch time treated as a firm saving. Neither is a sensible way to make the new fixture pay for itself

Preserve the original sheets. Put interpretations beside them. A cleaned-up table should not erase which measurement condition was actually recorded and which was inferred.

Emma, contact equivalence is not established. Amara, originals remain untouched. I am adding an index that distinguishes recorded height, unknown support and correction order, rather than filling the blanks in a new table.

That is useful, but who will decide whether the missing support detail can be recovered? Or rather, whether any recovered account is reliable enough for the decision you need, not just plausible.

I would keep the old operator's account beside its source and date, because recollection can explain a habit without proving that every bracket on the sheet was measured that way.

And name the owner of a new comparison if the history remains insufficient, so the uncertainty does not move from a folder into an unowned meeting action.

Is there a retained uncorrected bracket, or only finished examples?

Even an uncorrected example needs its identity and history, Niamh. I wouldn't let whichever bracket looks worst become the official before picture for a different corrected one.

Only finished examples identified so far. Quality owns the evidence review with fabrication. No new study agreed yet, Henry. We have not reconstructed the missing support condition from an interview or a sample.

Keep that limitation in the fixture brief, then; the existing notes justify a question about released dimensions without justifying a particular correction or restraint change.

Victor, will the contact comparison be made against the same drawing datums, rather than matching the shapes of the two fixture sketches?

Yes, that is in the requested comparison. We need the locating purpose as well as the visible geometry. It has not been carried out, and the proposed fixture is not released from this records review.

Also state the measurement supports for any eventual current-part study; agreeing the drawing datums alone will not remove the uncertainty that brought you here.

The old records now have a defensible limit. I would leave the technical decision open until quality and fabrication say what further evidence the fixture choice actually requires.