Nobody has defined it for the proposal. The old route names correction but gives no method or time allowance.

Keep the correction as unknown work meanwhile, not zero work because its time is missing.

And separate the question of how it was corrected from how the released failure was measured. A poorly described correction doesn't make the earlier failed dimension meaningless, but the support and datum still need to be known.

Henry, both entries name the same drawing revision. Aaron, the released sheet lacks its support condition. I cannot yet connect the measurement method to the fixture sketch.

Is inspection able to identify that method from another record?

Same drawing removes one possible confusion. It doesn't make restrained alignment equivalent to released acceptance.

Inspection is searching for the method. Incoming fit-up also has no numerical record in this folder; I have left both gaps explicit rather than infer them from the final pass.

That final pass may include somebody's extra bench work. It shouldn't disappear from your review.

Agreed. The current evidence describes an incomplete historical route, not a validated correction process for the new cell; the responsible process team needs to define the next study before the proposal promises either removal or automation of that work.