using bonus of MMC when the part is oversize .

I am not looking in the specification, but I don't recall ever seeing the specification mention it. I know in the old PC-DMIS versions 2.3, 3.0 that I used, it would give you all the bonus no matter the tolerance limit whereas version 2020 cuts the bonus calculation at the tolerance limit. Personally, I think that goes against intent as a functional position "GO" gauge would allow for all physical tolerance. Position is not limited by size "out of tolerance." However, I can see a rationale for reporting position out of tolerance when reporting due to the nature that if size was within spec (with position remaining the same), then position would be out of spec. Conversely, that's still against intent IMO because if you fixed the size, you likely took effort to fix the position. Also, whereas MRB might stipulate later they can USE AS IS on size, there would be no need to reject on position as it fits.

I am not looking in the specification, but I don't recall ever seeing the specification mention it. I know in the old PC-DMIS versions 2.3, 3.0 that I used, it would give you all the bonus no matter the tolerance limit whereas version 2020 cuts the bonus calculation at the tolerance limit. Personally, I think that goes against intent as a functional position "GO" gauge would allow for all physical tolerance. Position is not limited by size "out of tolerance." However, I can see a rationale for reporting position out of tolerance when reporting due to the nature that if size was within spec (with position remaining the same), then position would be out of spec. Conversely, that's still against intent IMO because if you fixed the size, you likely took effort to fix the position. Also, whereas MRB might stipulate later they can USE AS IS on size, there would be no need to reject on position as it fits.