Ada, were you able to recover the support, or did you have to abandon that comparison? I have a cupboard full of gauges with optimistic labels.

Stores found a likely one, but identification was still outstanding in the account I posted. I retained the results and stopped presenting them as a direct before-and-after comparison.

Emma, it's a tick beside aligned, no dimension; Ada, the released sheet names a gauge but there is no support sketch in the folder

Start with that gauge name. I'd ask inspection whether its controlled drawing shows the support, before someone measures an old object and assumes it belongs to this bracket

And who keeps the gauge now? Searching an empty cabinet wastes everyone's shift

That distinction changes the training story too. If acceptance followed correction, I'd teach it as a separate historical operation, not proof that the weld fixture produced an accepted bracket.

Julia, yes, though I would avoid writing a lesson around the correction until somebody can explain what it was. A named operation can sound much more established than a handwritten note deserves.

Fair point. I mean show the gap in the route, not teach people to reproduce the unexplained operation.

Beth, acceptance is after correction; Leo and Kai, inspection has the gauge drawing and custody record, but the gauge revision on the old sheet isn't legible

Try the original scan before commissioning new measurements. Enlarged photocopies can lose a faint revision character. No guarantee, but a cheap place to look.

Diane, the original scan does make the revision readable, thanks; inspection still needs to establish the measurement condition, and Anita is right that we have no incoming fit-up readings

That leaves a useful but incomplete history: accepted parts existed after extra work, not a demonstrated route from loose pieces to accepted weldments. I'd put that limitation directly beside the production proposal, where the missing correction could otherwise disappear.