Keep the drawing revision beside it. Otherwise even matched measurements may answer different requirements.

And preserve the measuring supports. A dimension recorded in restraint isn't interchangeable with a released inspection just because the feature name matches.

I can follow two assemblies by their traveller numbers. One has a released result, then a correction entry, then an accepted result. The other only has the accepted sheet.

Then the first assembly gives you a documented sequence, not an uncorrected process result. The second leaves that sequence unknown. I would not combine them into an average for selecting the new fixture.

Does the correction entry say what was done, or is it just a signature beside the word?

You could ask the operator who signed it, with the actual sheet in front of them.

Alex, yes, but don't turn a remembered explanation into a missing measurement. It can describe the method without reconstructing the amount.

It is just a signature. The former operator has agreed to talk it through with fabrication and quality. I've marked the pre-correction measurement as available only for the first assembly.

Hana, agreed. I meant identify the operation, not ask them to remember a number.

Incoming fit-up is still absent from this discussion. Does either traveller show preparation before the assembly was loaded? A released failure may be real while its starting condition remains undocumented.

Only a general fit-up tick. No gaps or component measurements. That's another missing stage, and it affects both assemblies.

Did the operator meeting clarify what the tick actually covered?

Yes. They checked that the prepared pieces could be assembled, but sometimes dressing happened first. The correction signature referred to a separate post-release operation. Quality has now split those stages in the proposed study sheet.

Thanks for reporting the preparation too. It would have been easy to omit that from the new handover.

That still does not establish that dressing caused the later dimensional error. Keep it as a process dependency to investigate, not the explanation you've finally found.

The useful outcome is that the new study can observe the stages separately. It needs agreed inspection methods as well as boxes for values, or different supports may create another set of incomparable records.

Who approves that study sheet before the cell specification uses it?

Fabrication and quality approved the recording plan today, including supports and drawing references. The old accepted figures are no longer being used as evidence of uncorrected output. We still need the new study before choosing the fixture scheme.