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.

@GabrielBennett0714 Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.

@OliverAdams0102 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.

Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.

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

The measurement problem is clearer, but I still can't explain the released variation. I'll keep fixture changes open until the inspection basis and linked records support the specialists' assessment.

That fits the evidence. Clearer measurement uncertainty helps, but it doesn't yet explain the released variation or specify a fixture change.