GabrielArcher0366 · 21 Jun 2026, 20:40 UTC
It could force a part against competing contacts without resolving the locating scheme. Ask the fixture designer to map each contact to the intended datums and compare identified samples without using clamp force to explain away the difference.
13 pointsThe drawing labels support pads, but the side contacts are not assigned a locating purpose.
17 pointsDoes one bracket repeat its own seat? Or can the same bracket choose different contacts when you place it again? I'd separate that from differences between brackets before blaming all the extra contacts
16 pointsWhich surfaces define the inspection requirement on the part drawing? The fixture labels alone do not establish the datum scheme that the measurement needs.
5 pointsWe found alternate corner contact and a rough-edge side contact in another nest. Yours may be different. What contact or gap have you actually observed on these samples?
6 pointsCarla, a gap at one pad on two samples. Owen, repeated placement of one sample is unrecorded.
25 pointsThat is useful but incomplete. Retain the sample identities and gap locations, then let the designer and measurement owner relate them to the part datums. Do not convert a visible gap into proof that every contact is unnecessary.
4 pointsLin, yes. I wouldn't start removing supports from that description either. Gabriel can ask for a static repeat-seating comparison before a redesigned clamp becomes the next purchase
23 pointsHas the measurement owner identified the drawing datums yet? That remains the missing link between seating observations and whether this nest can support the intended inspection.
5 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.