Hand-loaded steel bush blanks show different exposed lengths in our UR5e lathe-loading study. The sheet measures nothing else. Automatic loading isn't authorised. I want to separate blank variation from seating before the team decides the robot needs to compensate.
Can you identify the blanks individually and compare their overall lengths with repeated manual seating measurements from the defined axial reference, under the machinist's normal procedure? Otherwise the exposed length combines two quantities your sheet has not separated.
And establish which surfaces define the measurement. A number called stick-out may change because the reference face changed, without telling you anything useful about seating.
The sheet says front face but doesn't show which face on the chuck was used. We still have the blanks, but they weren't individually marked when those readings were taken.
Then I would not assign the old readings retrospectively to particular blanks, Lucy; use them to justify a fresh identified comparison with the measuring faces shown, not to calculate a correction from an uncertain pairing.
Repeatability of the measuring method matters as well. Ask the machinist and inspection person to agree that before you interpret small differences as a loading problem.
They are defining the measurement method and a manual reseating comparison now. No new results yet. I have kept the old sheet as unpaired observations rather than turning it into a blank-length study.
Will the comparison record observations such as burrs or debris separately from the dimensions, so an unusual seat has context without someone silently discarding its reading?