The sheets mix clamped checks and released measurements. Some don't say which. The drawing has the dimension, but our procedure leaves the support condition vague.

@RobinAllen0338 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.

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.

@LeoAllen0275 Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps.

@RobinAllen0338 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.

I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.

I can describe the measurement uncertainty better, although the cause of released variation remains open. Any fixture change still needs a specialist assessment supported by the inspection basis and traceable records.

@RobinAllen0338 The remaining cause and assessment questions explain the open fixture decision. Improving the measurement basis is useful without claiming those questions are settled.