This sounds like a minor tweak, but it was a tectonic shift. Suddenly, the drawing had to say everything. No more silent assumptions. The result: clearer communication, but also a massive increase in the number of tolerances on every drawing.
The German machinist, trained in the old school, assumed the size tolerance controlled the position of the holes loosely. He drilled them. The Swedish inspector, newly trained in ISO 8015, rejected the entire batch. Why? Because under ISO 8015, the size tolerance has nothing to do with position. Without an explicit (using the ⌖ symbol) referenced to a datum system, the holes could be anywhere within the plate's overall length tolerance. The machinist had used the old "chain of defaults." The inspector used the new "independency principle." iso 8015
The chaos was expensive. Rejection rates were high. Legal teams loved it. Engineers hated it. In 1985, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published a document that seemed, on its surface, dry as dust: ISO 8015:1985 – Technical drawings – Fundamental tolerancing principle . This sounds like a minor tweak, but it was a tectonic shift
Then came a quiet revolution from Geneva, Switzerland. Its name was . The Old Way: The Silent Assumption Imagine a French aerospace company in 1985. An engineer drafts a simple shaft for a landing gear actuator. He specifies a diameter of ( 50 \pm 0.1 ) mm. He does not specify straightness, roundness, or parallelism. Why would he? The old default said: If no geometric tolerance is given, the size tolerance controls form . This was the Taylor Principle (or Envelope Requirement). The perfect virtual cylinder of the maximum material condition (MMC) would automatically limit how bent or oval the shaft could be. The result: clearer communication, but also a massive
But the real victory came in global supply chains. After ISO 8015 was widely adopted (revised in 2011 as ISO 8015:2011, and eventually absorbed into the GPS master standard ISO 14638), a drawing from Japan could be read identically in Brazil, Germany, or South Africa. The standard eliminated the "translation errors" that had cost billions in scrap.
But here’s the rub: That default only worked for features of size (holes, shafts). What about a flat surface? No default. What about the angle between two faces? No default. Every drawing was a minefield of unspoken agreements. Japanese suppliers assumed one set of defaults; German suppliers another. When a part arrived from Italy and failed assembly, the argument wasn’t about the part—it was about which standard applied .