I followed an old bracket batch through its paperwork and found an extra bench between welding and final inspection, with no task description on the route card; before our UR5e proposal inherits a mysterious correction operation, how do I separate what was checked in the jig from what happened after release?
Start with the actual checks. Was the jig entry a measurement or a note that the bracket contacted its stops? The final pass sheet may describe a later condition after that unidentified bench.
Who used that bench? A height gauge could have been checking or sorting parts, not necessarily correcting them. The unexplained step needs a description before a new fixture is credited with removing it.
Keep fit-up and released acceptance separate while you ask. We have had to withdraw an in-fixture pass claim on another bracket review because the photo showed restraint, not a comparable dimensional result.
I would also ask whether every bracket visited the bench or only selected ones, because a final average can hide both the selection and the extra work.
Former operator says all went there for a height check, then some were sent to a separate correction station; the route card only records the final inspection after they returned.
Sarah, see whether the old check instruction names the drawing revision and supports. Finding the gauge is helpful, but we still need to know what it was set up to measure.
Found the check instruction for revision B, using the mounting face on a support block; our proposed bracket is revision D, and the support block itself has no identifier.
That is the right boundary. Let fabrication and quality define the current released check, with the fixture designer involved where the locating contacts matter. No need to force revision D through revision B's explanation.
I'd still ask the operator what the correction involved. It may reveal why the old process needed intervention, even if you cannot copy its method or allowance to the new bracket.
Operator remembers correcting the flange height but cannot give the selection limit from memory; I have named that gap instead of borrowing the final acceptance limit and assuming it was the same.
Keep correction and first released inspection visible in the proposed trial, even if the expectation is that no correction will be needed. Otherwise the trial can only confirm its own optimistic route.
Did fabrication and quality agree who owns the new method, Sarah? Interested whether the old gauge turned out useful or remains only an unidentified bit of history.