I'm reviewing historical records for our planned planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR10 and a gusseted steel support bracket weldment in a precision fabrication quality department.
The notes describe alignment under restraint but dimensions outside the drawing requirement after release.
I'd like to distinguish incoming fit-up, fixture location and final acceptance before carrying an unexplained correction routine into the new cell; no live welding adjustments are involved.
Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.
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.
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.