Cannot choose an FR5 seating allowance from two different protrusion references

Blank identities are retained, but only some photographs show the measuring reference clearly; I have left the uncertain entries out of the numerical comparison without deleting the original sheet.

Overall blank lengths recorded anywhere? Different measuring references might not be the only variation here

Agree the current measuring method before repeating it, with the setter identifying the intended seating arrangement. Otherwise the better sheet can still collect two people's answers to different questions.

The setter and quality have agreed a common reference and retained each blank's overall length and end condition beside its new protrusion reading; one blank is shorter than the intended incoming size, so the old spread was not entirely a measuring-reference problem.

Is that short blank permitted stock for this job?

Quality says it is not, and stores traced it to a different incoming size put in the same container; the permitted blanks gave consistent results under the agreed hand-loading and measuring method.

What happens to that container now, Naomi? A corrected study won't stop another person selecting the same short stock if it goes straight back into circulation.

Keep the two findings distinct in your estimate: inconsistent measurement references and an out-of-scope blank. Neither is an allowance for a robot to compensate around without a defined loading assessment.

Stores has checked and separated the contents by the actual incoming references, Nathan; Aaron, the proposal now uses only the agreed current observations and leaves automatic loading unapproved pending its own assessment.

Did the correction reach the person who copied the original spread into the costing sheet?

Yes, the guessed seating allowance has been removed from that sheet and its source marked superseded; the estimator has the paired measurements and both explanations, rather than a smaller unexplained number to substitute.