@MiaChan1079 My sheets contain both restrained and released results, with some conditions unlabelled. Although the drawing specifies the dimension, the inspection procedure doesn't clearly define the supports.

@LouisChan1094 Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.

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.

@MiaChan1079 Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.

@LouisChan1094 Keep the revision unconfirmed in the data. A separate note can preserve the recollection as a lead without presenting it as an established fixture reference.

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

My review approach is settled: establish the acceptance condition and use measurements with identifiable conditions. I can take that forward while leaving fixture and process changes dependent on specialist assessment.

You've answered how to frame the records review, with any design or process change still dependent on what the specialists establish.