I'm checking an old gusseted-bracket route for a UR5e proposal and the in-jig inspection uses the jig upright as its reference, while final inspection measures the released bracket from its base face; the estimator has put both in one before-and-after column, which seems a bit ambitious.
Does the drawing specify those as comparable measurements? Different reference faces may make the numbers answer different questions. I would ask inspection before treating their difference as movement after release.
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.
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.