I'm reviewing historical records for our planned planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR5 and a fabricated gusseted mounting bracket in a welded-bracket fabrication workshop. The notes describe alignment under restraint but dimensions outside the drawing requirement after release.
I'd like to distinguish incoming fit-up, fixture location and final acceptance before carrying an unexplained correction routine into the new cell; no live welding adjustments are involved.
@OliverBaker0450 Compare the specified inspection condition and reference supports with the historical sheets. Do individual measurements identify whether the assembly was restrained or released?
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.
@BrunoChen1148 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
@GabrielAli0192 Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.
@OliverBaker0450 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.
@GabrielAli0192 My review approach is settled: establish the acceptance condition and use measurements with identifiable conditions. I can take that forward while leaving fixture and process changes dependent on specialist assessment.