I'm reviewing historical records for our planned defining dimensional control for bracket welding with Fairino FR10 and a steel gusseted bracket assembly in a robotic welding project review. The notes describe alignment under restraint but dimensions outside the drawing requirement after release.
I'd like to distinguish incoming fit-up, fixture location and final acceptance before carrying an unexplained correction routine into the new cell; no live welding adjustments are involved.
Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.
@HassanBrown0878 My sheets contain both restrained and released results, with some conditions unlabelled. Although the drawing specifies the dimension, the inspection procedure doesn't clearly define the supports.
Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
@HassanBrown0878 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.
@HassanBrown0878 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.
@HassanBrown0878 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.
@TobyBrooks0840 My review approach is settled: establish the acceptance condition and use measurements with identifiable conditions. I can take that forward while leaving fixture and process changes dependent on specialist assessment.