Bracket acceptance measured against the jig itself

No, drawing F specifies the released part from base datum A, and the jig sheet just says flush with upright; I think the spreadsheet has given a workshop check more precision than it ever had.

Then have the estimator remove that calculated difference. Keep both original observations. Which final measurements were taken before correction?

Also ask the person who wrote flush what they checked, because it could mean a visual gap, a gauge or just that the clamp closed without a fight

I've got a similarly misleading bracket chart under review. Keep the raw checks separate, yes, but I wouldn't discard the jig observation. It may still describe an important loading problem once somebody explains it.

Maya, the final sheet follows correction on the traveller; Chloe, the setter says flush was a visual seating check before welding, no gauge, which answers why there are ticks rather than readings.

That is useful context. Can the review now specify incoming fit-up, the seating check and untouched released dimensions as separate stages? The old final ticks leave the last of those unknown.

Noah, agreed on keeping it, especially now Victor has explained what the setter actually did; the spreadsheet version was the problem, not the bloke checking that his bracket sat down

Fabrication and inspection are defining that staged trial, Maya; the calculated movement column is gone, original checks remain, and correction time stays an open estimate item until we have current results.

Is the current gusset the same revision as the old route used? Worth asking before the trial scope quietly inherits another assumption.