My sheets contain both restrained and released results, with some conditions unlabelled. Although the drawing specifies the dimension, the inspection procedure doesn't clearly define the supports.

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

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

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.

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

Keep the revision unconfirmed in the data. A separate note can preserve the recollection as a lead without presenting it as an established fixture reference.

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.

@AmaraBarnes0600 Why doesn't matching the required shape in the fixture establish that the assembly meets the dimensional requirement?

The acceptance requirement may apply to the released assembly. A dimension maintained by fixture restraint doesn't establish what that dimension will be once the restraint is removed.

I know how to frame the review now: an explicit acceptance condition and measurements whose conditions are identifiable. That answers my records question; any fixture or process change still depends on the specialists' assessment.

That gives the specialists an interpretable basis for review. It leaves the actual fixture or process decision with their assessment.