@TobyArcher0405 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.

@IsaacAdams0172 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.

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.

Keep the revision unconfirmed in the data. A separate note can preserve the recollection as a lead without presenting it as an established fixture reference.

I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.

@LeahAllen0321 I know how to frame the review now: an explicit acceptance condition and measurements whose conditions are identifiable. That answers my records question; any fixture or process change still depends on the specialists' assessment.

You've answered how to frame the records review, with any design or process change still dependent on what the specialists establish.