But, when a new Associate becomes the inspector where the Gage R&R is applied, how will you know that the new Associate is performing the inspection in the manner that the first three were? How about the next 10 new auditors? How will your company / plant demonstrate a training plan? If the associate who usually performs the inspection calls in sick, how will the cell or shift leader determine who can fill in?
Certainly, performing a gage R&R is one method for verifying the training. Ongoing GR&Rs for all associates and all gages can become a consuming overhead - you may be manufacturing gage studies instead of parts. If you have infinite resources, or extreme risk, you can do it. Otherwise, one can prioritize the need for operator verification by gage r&r by some conditions:
1) If the gage is highly operator dependent
2) If, when working with the gage system to ensure the gage was appropriate gage, training became an issue.
3) The gage has a high gage R&R value, and the risk of any further variation in operator may move it to unacceptable.
If those conditions do not exist, and you chose your original gage study operators with a representative level of training - including new people - then it may be a very low priority to gage R&R the individual.
Once again, however, the conversation shows that gage R&R is a toolbox, and not a tool - for evaluating the gage system, not the gage. What you are describing is using the study to determining if the operator is the right operator for the job - and the original study was used to determine if the gage was the right gage for the job! Two different questions! Two different approaches with the same toolbox.