@BrunoBrooks0800 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.

Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

@BrunoBrooks0800 Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.

That's a fair correction. State grouping addresses only one source of difference; the review also needs support conditions and fixture and process references, with missing information explicitly identified.

@BrunoBrooks0800 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.

I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.

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.

The drawing owner confirms released inspection on specified reference supports. Quality is putting that condition into the sheet. At least that part won't be guessed.