We're planning planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR10 on a fabricated gusseted mounting bracket in a precision fabrication quality department. 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.
The sheets mix clamped checks and released measurements. Some don't say which. The drawing has the dimension, but our procedure leaves the support condition vague.
Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.
@CallumBarnes0534 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.
@AmaraAli0252 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.
@MinaChan1120 On my bracket job, filling blanks from memory produced a very persuasive trend. Finding the original fixture sheets made the trend disappear. Not my favourite chart.