Hold that feature and resolve the document conflict with the drawing owner. Neither file format automatically wins. Issue a matched revision set that explicitly identifies the governing geometry and dimensions before the supplier manufactures the part.
Hold the conflicting feature rather than letting the shop choose
First identify the conflict precisely. Name the hole, its reference datum and the two different positions. Record the file names, revision markings and issue dates without treating the most recent timestamp as proof of approval. A copied file can acquire a new date while retaining obsolete geometry. The immediate instruction should be to avoid manufacturing the disputed feature until its intended position is confirmed.
Ask the responsible designer whether the PDF annotation, the CAD geometry or another controlled definition carries the approved requirement. This is a document-authority question, not a choice the cutting shop should make on the buyer’s behalf. The fitment drawing guidance can frame the complete review, but the present task is narrower: remove contradictory instructions from one order before anyone relies on them.
Compare revision, units and dimension annotations in a discrepancy log
Build a discrepancy entry containing the feature identifier, both values, units, source files and proposed resolution. Check whether the apparent difference comes from a unit import, an outdated revision, a changed origin or a dimension that was not updated with the geometry. These are possibilities to investigate, not explanations to assume. Preserve the original files so the revision history remains understandable.
Review nearby features after correcting the disputed hole. A changed origin may affect more than the first visible mismatch, while a single intentional change may leave the rest untouched. Compare the pattern endpoints and the features that connect to the mounting assembly. Use the applicable equipment documentation for machine-side references where available; it does not determine which of your own conflicting design files was approved. That decision remains with the authorized drawing owner.
Issue a matched controlled file set with an explicit governing document
Issue a clean, matched CAD and PDF set, not a corrected value buried in an email beside two obsolete attachments. Put the revision and controlling-document statement on the release record. Ask the supplier to acknowledge the replacement files and withdraw earlier versions from the job. If the supplier needs to generate manufacturing geometry from the PDF, have that interpretation reviewed through the agreed approval process.
Tie the replacement blade enquiry and purchase line to the resolved revision. Receiving inspection should use that same definition, otherwise a correctly manufactured part could be checked against the superseded PDF. A supplier’s statement that both positions are machinable says nothing about which will fit. Close the discrepancy only when the intended position, file set and inspection reference agree. That gives production a single instruction and gives purchasing a defensible basis for accepting the finished part.
Primary references support the specific points linked above; equipment documentation applies to its stated models.
