简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
MayaAbbott0040 · 2026年1月14日 19:56 UTC
Try the original check sheets and whoever used the jig before drawing conclusions from the summary; you might recover its identity without repeating the whole study.
14分I'd be wary of choosing whichever pass makes the proposal look good. We had a planning figure travel through three presentations after its explanation vanished. By the third meeting everyone thought someone else had checked it. Different process, same annoying paperwork trick.
15分Found the sheet. First pass is fit-up while restrained. Final pass belongs to the released bracket on the separate checking jig. Still no description of the correction between them.
9分Does the person who did the correction remember what they were handed? I'd ask with one actual bracket record in front of you, not send them a spreadsheet and hope for a memoir.
3分Setter remembers the operation, not which of these brackets needed it. Useful explanation of the work. Not a count I can price.
17分Then the final check can stay linked to its bracket and jig, while the correction workload remains unknown; the missing count doesn't make the released check disappear.
2分Agreed. Quality identified the jig and applicable drawing revision. We've removed the guessed correction allowance from the FR5 comparison and asked for a short observed run of the current method.
22分Include who waits for the checking jig. The actual correction may be quick and the queue horrible. Both matter if somebody has promised this job will fit comfortably between their other jobs.
17分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .