Check that the released inspection identifies its support arrangement and drawing revision. Without those, even the numerical result is hard to compare with the proposed acceptance method.

Aligned is a tick against fixture seating, not a numerical reading; the released failure has values, and the accepted sheet follows a correction signature on the same traveller.

Then you have a corrected route in the record. Doesn't mean the fixture was useless, but it doesn't show that the new robot can deliver those accepted dimensions without the missing operation.

Who signed the correction? If they're available, take the original sheets to them with quality rather than ask a general question about what people used to do.

They're still here, and quality has the request to go through that traveller with them; no explanation back yet.

Incoming preparation is also missing from the account. Is fit-up recorded before the seating tick?

Could you estimate correction effort from the old labour entry meanwhile? Even a range might show whether omitting it changes the proposal.

Naomi, only if that labour entry actually isolates correction. A shift total with several operations in it would give a very confident-looking wrong estimate.

No incoming measurements and no separate correction time, only the shift total; I've marked both missing, rather than distribute hours across brackets and pretend that answers it.

You can still list the correction as an unpriced dependency. Missing time doesn't make it free, and it doesn't require inventing a number today.

Agreed, Nina; I'd assumed a separate entry, which Jo doesn't have. Keep it unpriced until there's a basis.

Proposal now separates the recorded corrected route from the intended uncorrected output; quality and fabrication have the gaps to review, with no fixture change selected from this little stack of ticks.

Keep the pending explanation attached to that revision. The clearer description is useful, but the correction method and current-study requirements remain unanswered.