ISO 2768 vs ISO 22081 is a drawing-review question that should start with the exact standard reference. Identify the part, edition and scope in the approved documents before the supplier assigns acceptance limits to an aluminum component.
ISO’s public catalogue identifies ISO 2768-2:1989 as withdrawn and revised by ISO 22081:2021. ISO 2768-1:1989 has a separate entry and remains listed as published at the time of this review.
On this page
ISO 2768 vs ISO 22081: read the references separately
The ISO 2768-1:1989 catalogue entry concerns general tolerances for linear and angular dimensions without individual tolerance indications. Its abstract describes four classes and dimensions of workpieces made by metal removal or formed from sheet metal.
The ISO 2768-2:1989 catalogue entry concerns general geometrical tolerances for features without individual indications. Its abstract describes three classes and mainly features produced by material removal. The entry marks the edition withdrawn and identifies ISO 22081:2021 as its revision.
The ISO 22081:2021 catalogue entry gives rules for defining and interpreting general geometrical and general size specifications. It lists scope limitations, including integral features rather than derived features or integral lines, and excludes dimensions other than linear or angular sizes.
These public abstracts establish the distinction and publication status. They do not provide the complete application rules or a tolerance table for the buyer’s part.
| Reference in the package | Question for the drawing review |
|---|---|
| ISO 2768-1 | Which complete edition and size requirements apply? |
| ISO 2768-2 | How is this legacy geometrical reference to be handled for the order? |
| ISO 22081 | Where are the general specifications defined, and which features do they cover? |
| ISO 2768 without a part | Can the drawing authority provide the complete intended reference? |
Publication status checked on October 1, 2026. Recheck the current catalogue when issuing or revising an order, especially where a referenced document is under revision.
Four checks before accepting a cutting quotation
1. Identify the approved drawing and its revision
Give the supplier the complete drawing package, including its title block, general notes and any referenced specification sheet. A cropped part view may hide the information needed to interpret the order.
Ask the supplier to name the drawing revision used for its quotation. If the package contains a drawing and a separate model, identify how the drawing authority wants those files used.
Keep a clarification visible in the controlled documents. An informal explanation that is absent from the revised order can leave the next person reading the same ambiguity.
Use our cut-list revision control guide to keep the drawing, order and production list associated with the same release.
2. Separate size and geometrical questions
List the dimensions and geometrical requirements that matter to the supplied part. Finished length, angle, face orientation and other features should each have an identifiable requirement.
Ask the drawing authority to show which requirements are individually indicated and which use a general specification. Then ask the supplier to confirm the interpretation used in the quotation.
Do not treat a general standard name as a summary of every feature. The buyer needs a readable link between the drawing requirement and the part that will be inspected.
For cutting-specific examples, see the cutting tolerance guide and cut-face squareness guide.
3. Resolve the legacy reference through the drawing authority
If an existing drawing names ISO 2768-2:1989, ask how that reference is to be handled for the new order. Make the requested decision specific to the drawing revision and supplied part.
The supplier should be able to identify the acceptance basis it priced. If a change to the drawing is proposed, request review and approval from the responsible drawing authority before releasing the revised package.
Keep proposed changes separate from approved changes. A catalogue replacement identifies the standards relationship; the production package still needs an agreed, readable specification.
Where the supplier and buyer interpret the note differently, request a documented clarification. Resolve it before accepting sample results against competing requirements.
4. Agree the inspection basis for each relevant feature
Ask how the supplier will inspect the agreed features of the supplied part. Record the datum or reference, measurement method and reporting format needed to understand the result.
If finishing or assembly follows cutting, identify the condition in which the part is to be assessed. Keep any requirements for separate production stages clearly named.
A report should show the requirement beside the observed result, with the part identity and drawing revision. This allows the buyer to trace a conclusion back to the agreed order documents.
Use the finished-length datum guide to clarify where a length is measured and the first article inspection guide to organize the record.
Compare two quotations against one agreed requirement
Imagine two quotations for the same aluminum rail. One identifies the drawing revision and applicable general specification; the other says only “standard tolerance.” This is a hypothetical procurement comparison, not evidence of a nonconforming part.
Send both suppliers the same approved package. Ask each to confirm the complete specification, any exceptions and the proposed inspection basis. Compare those answers before comparing price.
Do not fill a missing requirement using an internet tolerance chart. Request the intended requirement from the drawing authority and use the complete applicable standard where it is needed.
Keep an exception explicit. If the supplier proposes a different requirement for one feature, name that feature and obtain the required approval in the order documents.
Send the cutting supplier a package that can be followed
Include the material identity, section drawing, finished dimensions, approved general notes and drawing revision. Identify the critical faces and references for the actual cut part.
Attach any approved clarification with the order. Ensure the supplier can identify which package is released for production and which earlier versions are superseded.
Ask the supplier to confirm its interpretation and identify unresolved items before the trial or production release. Keep that response with the quotation and sample approval records.
Send JiurunCut your profile drawing and agreed cutting requirements to discuss the cutting arrangement and representative samples needed for a proposal.
Questions buyers ask
Has all of ISO 2768 been withdrawn?
Read the separate part entries. At the October 2026 check, ISO listed Part 2 as withdrawn and Part 1 as published. Verify the exact reference for the order.
Can the supplier automatically replace an old drawing note?
Request a decision from the drawing authority and an approved package. Keep any proposed change visible until it has been reviewed.
Does ISO 22081 provide a universal machine accuracy?
The public scope concerns general geometrical and size specifications. Request the actual part requirements and a separate supplier confirmation of the offered cutting arrangement.
What should the buyer clarify first?
The complete standard reference, drawing revision, requirements for the relevant features and the proposed inspection basis.