We're planning preparing robotic welding of gusseted brackets with Universal Robots UR5e on a fabricated gusseted mounting bracket in a welded-bracket fabrication workshop. Our old inspection notes say it looks aligned while restrained, then falls outside the drawing requirement after release.
I want to untangle fit-up, fixture location and final inspection before our new cell inherits an unexplained correction routine. This is a records review, not live welding adjustment.
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.
Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.
Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.
@MiaChan1079 That's a fair correction. State grouping addresses only one source of difference; the review also needs support conditions and fixture and process references, with missing information explicitly identified.
Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps.
Keep the revision unconfirmed in the data. A separate note can preserve the recollection as a lead without presenting it as an established fixture reference.
I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.
The acceptance requirement may apply to the released assembly. A dimension maintained by fixture restraint doesn't establish what that dimension will be once the restraint is removed.
I know how to frame the review now: an explicit acceptance condition and measurements whose conditions are identifiable. That answers my records question; any fixture or process change still depends on the specialists' assessment.