What should count as dimensional acceptance after welding?

@AnikaBennett0769 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.

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

@AnikaBennett0769 Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.

@ClaraChan1046 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.

Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.

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

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.

@AishaBaker0518 Why doesn't matching the required shape in the fixture establish that the assembly meets the dimensional requirement?

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.

@AnikaBennett0769 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.