A gauge result is only as useful as the record that carries it. When a lot is disputed six months later, the record has to let a third party reconstruct what was done: which gauge, which amendment, which calibration status, which parts, and what the outcome was.
Part identification and lot number. Gauge reference including amendment and serial number. Calibration due date at the time of use. Sample size and the stream each piece came from. Result per piece, not just the lot verdict. Room temperature if dimensional accuracy depends on it. Operator identification. And whether any part was measured rather than gauged, with the instrument used.
The gauge serial number and the calibration due date. Without them the record cannot prove the measurement was valid, and a record that cannot prove validity is worse than no record because it creates an appearance of control. The second most common gap is the sample size, which makes the confidence of the result unknowable.
A record that takes five minutes per lot will be filled in carelessly or not at all. Design a one page form with the fields above and no others, and audit it monthly. The purpose is evidence, not paperwork.
