Released sheet has a part reference; the restrained entry only says alignment okay. Can't link those as paired measurements. I'm asking for the route and original inspection notes.

Include the inspection supports and drawing datums in that request; different measurement arrangements can make an apparent before-and-after comparison unreliable even when the part identity matches.

Yes, and keep the unrestrained acceptance requirement separate from the fixture's locating job rather than asking one set of contacts to stand in for both.

The old accepted result should remain history, not disappear. Mark what condition it describes and what is unknown. That lets the fixture designer use the record without inheriting an unexplained assumption that the bracket leaves the process correct.

Who can identify the incoming component revisions used in that older run?

Process owner found the route, but it lists correction without a method. Component revisions still being checked. At least we've stopped treating the final tick as a measurement straight after release.

Can the person who performed that correction describe it, with the description kept as testimony rather than silently filling missing measurement fields?

That distinction helps. A recollection may explain why the operation existed, but it does not supply a dimensional result for these pieces. Keep the source of each statement visible when the new trial is scoped.

Former operator has been asked. No account back yet. I've separated fit-up, restrained observation, release check and correction in the review sheet, with the gaps left visible for quality and tooling.

Please report whether the account explains the purpose of correction; even then, the new process will need current evidence rather than a promise to reproduce an operation nobody has measured here.