We hand-loaded brass sleeve blanks during the FR5 planning study and got different exposed lengths. The sheet has a column called seating error. Nobody measured the individual blank lengths. I have renamed the column, because we haven't established an error yet, let alone one for the proposed robot to correct.
Keep each blank identified and pair its length with the exposed measurement taken from an agreed reference. Have the setter and quality define how seating and the contacting end are checked. A single exposed-length column cannot separate those causes.
We retained the blanks, but the old rows aren't linked to individual pieces. I can start a current comparison. I can't reconstruct those pairings honestly.
Agree one measurement reference with quality and the machine owner for the new comparison. Keep the old method difference noted; do not move the old numbers around until they look consistent.
And check the end of each blank that contacts the stop, with its identity kept through the observations. A burr or different preparation route could matter.
Two saw batches found in the same bin. They've been separated and tagged. The new sheet pairs blank length and exposed length, with the contact-end observation alongside.
Quality and the setter have agreed the current method. The comparison is arranged, not completed. No automatic-loading adjustment is being derived from the old figures.
Will both saw batches be included under that same method? That should help avoid replacing one mixed account with two results that still cannot be compared.