The exposure reference is the chuck face on every entry. Blank identities weren't recorded, so we cannot pair those old numbers with separate lengths now. We still have the samples, but not that missing link.

Then don't reconstruct the pairing from whichever blank looks longest. Make a new identified comparison.

Can the setter inspect the ends and seating surfaces during that comparison? Actual debris or damaged ends could matter, but I would record what is found rather than assume either explains the spread.

Keep the two sorts of variation separate on the new sheet. Different blanks repeating at different exposures is not the same result as one blank refusing to repeat. Otherwise you'll have a very neat list and the same unanswered question.

We have identified four samples. Three repeat consistently when seated manually; one varies on repeated placement. Overall lengths differ too, so Nathan's distinction is already useful. No automatic loading involved in this comparison.

Have the setter inspect the inconsistent sample and its actual contact before selecting an allowance; the stable length differences and the nonrepeatable seat should remain separate findings even if both affect exposure.

The inconsistent sample has a raised burr at the seating end. It is held for the normal material review. The other three have sound ends and their measured length differences explain their distinct repeatable exposures.

Are those three lengths within the required blank specification? Repeatable doesn't mean conforming

Jack's question is important for the next stage. I would not choose a loading allowance around a sample that the incoming check should have excluded.

The three sound-ended blanks are within the agreed stock length range. The burred one remains excluded pending disposition. We have not claimed the old unpaired readings came from that burr; only the new identified comparison supports it.

Thanks for keeping that boundary, Oliver. Does the planning sheet now show the conforming range and the separate incoming-condition check, rather than one large variation number for the integrator to absorb?

Yes. Length range, repeated-seat observations and the rejected-condition review are separate entries. The integrator has them for the proposed loading assessment; automatic seating capability and its confirmation method are not established by this hand-loaded study.

Retain those identified samples and the measurement method for that next assessment, including the excluded condition as a documented finding rather than a sample silently removed from the story.