The old bracket notes say aligned while restrained, then outside the drawing after release. Our UR5e proposal treats that as an understood correction problem. I don't; which observations actually distinguish fit-up from fixture location?
What did the restrained check observe on one identified assembly, and what released feature was measured against the drawing? Put those descriptions side by side before asking whether their difference means movement. Keep any correction between released failure and final acceptance visible too.
The held entry checks the mating edges visually. Released inspection measures the bracket face from mounting datums. No held measurement of that face, so our summary's release movement figure has no basis.
Can the released measurement be linked to its support arrangement and drawing revision, so the genuine failure stays usable after you remove that calculated movement?
The same trap caught my fit-up-gauge comparison, and keeping the fit-up check for what it actually does is better than binning it because it cannot explain the final face error.
Mina, yes. Chloe can retain evidence that the mating-edge check passed while refusing the stronger claim. The remaining question is whether the released measurement itself has enough context for the review.
Quality found the released inspection setup and matching drawing revision. That failure stays in the review; the invented movement is removed. We still lack a comparable held-face measurement and an explained correction method.