HarishAbbott0054 · 30 May 2025, 15:27 UTC
Find the finished-part inspection instruction first. It should tell you what was being accepted after release, separately from the clamped fit-up check.
14 pointsThe current drawing defines acceptance, but the old loose-part sheet gives only a height. We are asking the former inspector how that height was measured.
9 pointsAre the corrected and uncorrected parts identifiable in the records?
13 pointsWe inherited a job where straightening was everybody's unofficial extra task. It wasn't in the quote because it wasn't on the route. Before you price the robot, find out what people actually did between the fixture and final inspection. The missing labour can be the whole argument.
8 pointsSome travellers mark corrected, others say only passed. We cannot tell how many unmarked parts had extra work. I have left that estimate line unresolved rather than average the recorded times.
8 pointsThe inspector confirmed a different reference was used for the old height check. Quality is now measuring traceable retained parts from the current drawing.
13 pointsKeep the old results separate until that comparison is understood. The change of reference may explain some of the apparent disagreement.
18 pointsAnd ask the toolroom about the actual correction kit; an unlisted press operation won't fit into a couple of seconds of robot cycle time.
16 pointsWhat kit did you find? A photo may jog the operator's memory if the written name is vague.
11 pointsHas anyone linked that kit to a specific corrected batch? It would help separate its intended use from what happened on this bracket job.
11 pointsToolroom found a checking-and-correction station, but its use on these batches is not yet clear. The new estimate keeps that work and floor space open for review. We are not claiming the arm removes it.
20 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .