Yes, numbered bags match the sheet, and stores kept the stock references with them.

Can each setter identify which stop arrangement was fitted for their group? I'd ask them separately first, before one person's recollection becomes everybody's answer.

Measure the retained blank lengths and inspect the contact ends too. A setup change needn't be the only difference between those groups.

Total lengths overlap between groups and quality found the contact ends acceptable; the setup notes name different stop inserts, but our worksheet treated them as one setting.

That could account for the neat split. Do the two insert drawings give different contact-face positions in the intended setup? I'd have the setter and tooling compare those rather than infer the difference from the readings alone.

Were those both intended for this spacer job?

One was for the preceding job; setter changed to the spacer insert between the two groups, and the first readings were copied forward from the earlier setup comparison.

So which readings were actually taken from these retained spacer blanks, Caleb? I thought the numbered bags matched both groups.

They do; I explained that badly, Yasmin Ali, because the same spacer blanks were used to compare both stop setups, then the worksheet lost the setup column when it was shortened.

That makes the comparison useful again. Keep the two setup identities with each reading and check whether their intended contact positions explain the offset, without treating both as the approved spacer arrangement.

Has tooling confirmed that dimensional difference yet?

Tooling confirmed it matches the separation of the two groups, and the spacer insert is the required one for this job; the revised sheet shows the other setup as a comparison only.

Does the same blank repeat with the spacer insert?

Include the covering setter in that comparison if the agreed check allows it. The ordinary seating instruction matters as well as having the correct insert in the cupboard.

Both setters repeated the identified blanks with the intended insert and agreed seating check, and the exposed lengths were consistent for each blank; ordinary blank-length variation remains visible on the paired sheet.

Did the loading designer receive the corrected sheet, not just the result in this discussion?

Designer has it and removed the old combined spread from the FR5 proposal; the two insert references and per-blank dimensions are retained, with automatic loading still awaiting its own assessment.

Thanks for explaining the copied comparison. Has the shortened worksheet been replaced at the bench too?

And show the covering setter where the insert reference belongs on the replacement sheet. Otherwise the next tidy-up may remove the column that made this understandable.