I'm reviewing old support-bracket records for our FR5 proposal and the fixture seems to get all the credit for alignment while correction gets no explanation; how do I separate fit-up, locating and final acceptance before we inherit that routine? Records review only, no live welding tweaks.
Find out what aligned means on those sheets before treating it as a dimension. A fixture can hold an assembly in a plausible shape while the final released requirement is something the note never measured.
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.
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.
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.