I'm reviewing our UR5e bracket proposal and the old final-inspection figures are being used to justify the fixture, but the traveller sends parts through a correction bench first; that bench has somehow vanished from both the new floor plan and the estimate.
The good bracket reading comes after a missing operation
VictorAllen0272 · 12 Jul 2025, 19:43 UTC
19 replies
Replying to VictorAllen0272
Is it the same bracket revision? Easy to inherit the wrong history.
21pointsReplying to HenryBrooks0786
Old sheets and proposal both say revision G, so at least we're arguing about the same drawing this time.
13pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
And the fixture revision?
6pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
Before you bury yourself in the folder, talk to whoever worked that bench. On ours the instruction said check and correct, but only check happened on every part. Some brackets never needed correction. Others visited twice. The final sheet made them all look like one simple operation because it only kept the accepted number. I wouldn't price every old bracket as rework, but I certainly wouldn't delete the checking bench from a layout on that evidence either. Did yours record visits or only final results?
9pointsReplying to JoChan1114
Only final results, Jo, and the fixture is J6 on both the setup sheet and its plate; I've asked the former operator how the checking and correction were split.
8pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
Price the uncertainty. Leave an allowance for the missing work until the process review answers it. A blank estimate tends to become a promise of zero.
19pointsReplying to RebeccaBaker0517
Rebecca, would you put an allowance in both competing offers or ask each supplier to price it?
16pointsReplying to HenryBrooks0786
Ask both what they include. Keep your own allowance where neither has an agreed solution. Otherwise one offer wins by leaving the awkward line empty.
14pointsReplying to RebeccaBaker0517
I'd also keep the bench footprint provisional. If inspection still happens there, removing the correction operation may not release all the space the drawing promises.
20pointsReplying to RebeccaBaker0517
Thanks, Rebecca. That makes the comparison easier to explain to purchasing.
23pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
Former operator says each bracket was checked released, then corrected only if needed; no separate readings survived, but we've found the checking instruction and quality is reviewing it.
23pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
What does the instruction actually measure? Ours checked fit-up from a different datum than final inspection, which took an embarrassingly long time to notice. Same word square, two different checks.
17pointsReplying to JoChan1114
The released bracket angle from datum face A, same requirement as drawing G; quality confirmed that, but the clamped setup tick is only seating against the fixture stops.
19pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
So are they planning to capture the released angle before any correction in the new trial?
5pointsReplying to HenryBrooks0786
Yes, with identified parts and incoming fit-up recorded as well; welding and quality are writing the comparison, so I'm not carrying an unexplained bench tweak into the robot setup.
16pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
Has the estimate kept the allowance, Victor? The plan for a trial does not pay for whatever it discovers.
8pointsReplying to VictorAllen0272
Please share the result when that comparison happens. I'm interested whether the bench can go, not just whether the robot sequence fits the available floor.
11pointsReplying to RebeccaBaker0517
And whether either supplier still looks cheaper with the same work included.
10pointsReplying to RebeccaBaker0517
Allowance is still there, Rebecca, and both offers now list the inspection step; trial results are not back yet, so the bench space stays reserved rather than being counted as a saving.
8pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .