@RobinAli0251 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.

@GraceBrown0929 Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.

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

You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.

@RobinAli0251 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.

@GraceBrown0929 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.

@RobinAli0251 On my bracket job, filling blanks from memory produced a very persuasive trend. Finding the original fixture sheets made the trend disappear. Not my favourite chart.

@MayaBarnes0562 If the fixture holds it straight, why isn't that already the result we want?

Because the required inspection condition may be after release. Holding a shape under restraint doesn't establish the shape the assembly takes without that restraint.

@RobinAli0251 I've had the drawing owner confirm the released inspection condition and its reference supports. Quality is adding those requirements to the sheet so the measurement state is explicit.

Useful clarification. It doesn't retroactively tell you how the unlabelled old measurements were taken, though.

I'll keep those old entries flagged. The new definition helps the review; it doesn't magically repair the old paperwork.

@GraceBrown0929 Where sample links exist, pair incoming fit-up observations with the released measurements. That allows the welding engineer to assess associations in the context of the documented process.

I've found varying incoming fit-up in the traceable records for assemblies that changed shape after release. The association is visible, although it doesn't establish causation.

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.

That gives the specialists an interpretable basis for review. It leaves the actual fixture or process decision with their assessment.