The extra clamp proposal is based on an inspection tick

The shift lead says it means the upright was against the fence before welding. No angle measured there. I had read the heading as a dimensional check.

Then the old records don't show that the finished assembly was in tolerance while restrained. I'd correct that interpretation in the handover before it becomes the reason everyone quotes for changing the fixture.

That ordering matters too, especially if corrected means the part was physically adjusted rather than the measurement entry amended.

We have a first angle and a final angle on some sheets. They did physically straighten those parts. Other sheets only have the final number, which is less useful than I hoped.

Use the paired entries to describe what is known, and flag the others as incomplete. Whoever designs the trial should see that uncertainty rather than an average combining different stages.

Another clamp might change behaviour, but a fit-up tick is a remarkably thin basis for specifying one. Has anybody looked at the incoming bend angles and locator condition? Those belong in the investigation too.

An average final angle would hide the correction workload anyway, even with perfect arithmetic. Include how many parts needed somebody at the straightening bench.

Yes, and who will own that work if it remains after automation. It shouldn't vanish from the staffing plan just because the welding step gets a robot.

I've removed the claim that the fixture holds finished tolerance. We are asking quality and welding to plan paired measurements and review incoming parts before the fixture order. Nobody has agreed to the extra clamp yet.

Can the same review define a released-part acceptance method that the next shift can follow? That would make the new records considerably more useful than the inherited ticks.