Validate my method is fine please (programmers differ in opinion)

ONE: You should have one alignment that locks all 3 DOF. It was proven in the past that if you don't have that, Pcdmis could (randomly) change nominals on you.

Myself, I've always done LEVEL, ROTATE, ORIGIN, ROTATE OFFSET (if needed) and ORIGIN OFFSET. In that order.

Way back, when I took the Hexagon CMM 101 course, they really drove the LEVEL, ROTATE, ORIGIN order into us. We never got into offsets, but I have used them since.

I currently work with a guy that uses a manual CMM and GeoPack. He will measure a plane and level and z origin to it. Then measure a 2nd feature and rotate and origin that, and so on. I worked with a guy years ago that did the same in PC DMIS, probe a feature and align to it, probe the next feature and align to it, and so on. Seemed odd but it worked. The same guy would also probe nothing but points and construct all his features from those points. He did not trust the measured features tab.

In your example, I don't think either order of alignment is wrong. The best thing to do is to ask the other guy to elaborate as to why one is better than the other and objectively examine both. Maybe this person knows something, maybe they are just parroting a method they were trained to do and not question. I always inquire about programming different than mine for the same thing. Sometimes I find a better way of doing something.

ONE: You should have one alignment that locks all 3 DOF. It was proven in the past that if you don't have that, Pcdmis could (randomly) change nominals on you.

Myself, I've always done LEVEL, ROTATE, ORIGIN, ROTATE OFFSET (if needed) and ORIGIN OFFSET. In that order.

Way back, when I took the Hexagon CMM 101 course, they really drove the LEVEL, ROTATE, ORIGIN order into us. We never got into offsets, but I have used them since.

I currently work with a guy that uses a manual CMM and GeoPack. He will measure a plane and level and z origin to it. Then measure a 2nd feature and rotate and origin that, and so on. I worked with a guy years ago that did the same in PC DMIS, probe a feature and align to it, probe the next feature and align to it, and so on. Seemed odd but it worked. The same guy would also probe nothing but points and construct all his features from those points. He did not trust the measured features tab.

In your example, I don't think either order of alignment is wrong. The best thing to do is to ask the other guy to elaborate as to why one is better than the other and objectively examine both. Maybe this person knows something, maybe they are just parroting a method they were trained to do and not question. I always inquire about programming different than mine for the same thing. Sometimes I find a better way of doing something.