Our FR5 route breakdown retains eighteen first-time passes, five corrected passes and one rejected bracket, but the proposed fixture-study list now contains only the accepted pieces; how should we include the rejected case without pretending the new fixture ought to make every bad incoming part usable?
Ask quality why it was rejected and whether that condition belonged to incoming stock or the process; the comparison needs that distinction, not an instruction to rescue it somehow
Quality has retained it and its released failure, but the incoming record is incomplete, so I've added the case as an unresolved example rather than an ordinary accepted sample for the fixture trial.
That sounds fair. The study can still define how an unacceptable or uncertain piece gets identified and held, without demanding that the fixture correct a cause nobody has established