Restrained check is alignment to fixture stops. Released check is a drawing height. Final acceptance follows correction, but the sheets do not identify individual brackets across those stages. Current fixture proposal also needs comparison with the old contact arrangement.

That last distinction matters, Sam. Are the proposed contacts actually different, or have you simply not established whether they match?

Show both contact schemes against the same bracket datums. Names like old fixture don't describe location.

And retain the drawing height as a dimensional requirement, not a synonym for the restrained alignment check. They could disagree without measuring the same thing twice.

Emma, not established yet. Owen, I have requested the contact comparison against the current datums. Leo, the study brief now names the two checks separately rather than describing a part that passes and then fails the same test.

Would incoming component measurements belong in that brief too? My sleeve study has shown me how little one final exposed dimension says about what was loaded in the first place.

Jonas, yes, with identities retained. A batch range can describe supplied variation but cannot be assigned afterward to whichever bracket was corrected.

Keep retained corrected samples labelled as corrected. We had one impressive final part and no way to show its earlier state. Still useful to inspect, just not a time machine for missing measurements.

Will the new selection include ordinary incoming variation, rather than only the retained troublesome examples? Otherwise the study could clarify a cause without describing its normal workload.

Yes, ordinary variation is in the proposed selection. Quality has not agreed the sample scope yet. The retained corrected examples are separate; they will not be relabelled as the initial condition for the new study.

Who records any correction during the study, including the work before the next measurement?

That needs agreement with fabrication before the trial. Otherwise the person making the bracket acceptable can unintentionally remove the evidence quality was waiting to measure, despite everyone acting helpfully.

Mei, exactly. Sam, are the measurement supports defined as well as the datums? Released does not describe how the part rests during inspection.

Supports are still to be defined with quality. Fabrication will record correction work on the individual traveller, once the study is approved. These are assigned drafting tasks, not a completed method or new trial results.

That is an honest stage to report. I would not call the current proposal repeatable until the locating scheme and measurement method have both been exercised, however complete the paperwork becomes.

Sam, did the contact comparison turn up an actual change? Interested because the same bracket can be presented very differently by two fixtures with familiar names.

The proposed secondary locator uses a different bracket face. Designer has identified that change but has not demonstrated its effect on fit-up or released dimensions. It is now a specific comparison in the study scope.

Keep the locating purpose beside that face change. Geometry alone will not explain the design intent.

Please return with the agreed scope when available. I would like to see how ordinary variation and that changed locator are distinguished in the observations.