I want learners to see why a bracket was corrected, not just memorise that correction comes after welding. The UR5e proposal has a clamped alignment picture and a later pass, but the first released failure is a scribble with no clear feature. Has anyone made a useful training example from incomplete records like this?
Yes, but start by asking the original inspector what that failure meant, with the actual bracket identity and drawing beside the note rather than asking them to decode a cropped scribble.
Bracket identity is legible and the original drawing is revision C. Inspector is still here. I've asked about the checked feature and how the released bracket was supported.
Final pass covers hole spacing on revision C. Inspector remembers the first failure being at the upright, but cannot recover its actual value. So the later pass does not explain that first result.
Then keep that case as the incomplete example. For a complete worked example, could quality and fabrication record the next bracket through the agreed checks?
They have agreed a current observation using revision F and its inspection supports. The teaching sheet will keep that separate from the old C example, with individual bracket identity through any correction.
Both the specified upright feature and hole spacing, as quality requires on F. Fabrication will record what it actually corrects. We are not assuming every failed feature improves together.
The observed bracket failed the upright requirement at first release while hole spacing passed. After the recorded correction, both passed on the same F support arrangement. We now have a complete example without filling in the missing C reading.
Yes. She asked where the old bracket was, rather than assuming the new result cleared it. Quality is still tracing that old item. That is a useful unanswered question for the lesson to retain.