[Tristan Lall]

It's overdimensioned, as given, and due to roundoff error, some points aren't going to intersect perfectly. For example, the 18.250 and the 9.125 are redundant (theoretically, if the tolerances were different, this might be OK, but with none specified, it's too much). Also, tangent arcs have to be accounted for—see where you have 0.885 + 9.125 = 10.01? Since the radius is 10.011, it isn't tangent, meaning that there's a bulge there that isn't immediately obvious. If you mean those to be tangent, delete one of the three dimensions (because tangency is implied in conventional drawings). Also, it isn't clear whether you intend tangent radii where the 8.152 and the 10.011 intersect—if tangent, delete one of those dimensions, or a centre point dimension.

The whole problem with overdimensioning is that it allows a part to be interpreted in several ways. If they're overdimensioned but fully consistent, it's a matter of redundancy. If if they're inconsistent, like this one may well be, you risk producing different parts from the same drawing. (Aside: an overdimensioned, toleranced drawing will be inconsistent in all but the most trivial cases, because of tolerance stackup. This condition exists even when a global tolerance is implied, but not printed on each dimension.)