FionaChan1108 · 21 Jan 2026, 21:46 UTC
Check the identity on the fitted insert, not only its container. Have tooling assess whether the wrong orientation can be prevented physically, then have controls relate the verified family and orientation to the selected recipe. I would not assume a readable label settles all three
23 pointsThe current mark is underneath when fitted. Operator cannot see it at the bench.
14 pointsWhich locating contacts change when it is reversed? The tooling review should identify that physical difference before deciding what the orientation check must recognise.
15 pointsOur insert marking review ran into service access as well. Before you choose a new mark location, ask the setter and maintainer to show where they can actually read it. A lovely mark on the drawing can still be hidden behind the clamp.
5 pointsReversal puts the relief under the wrong housing boss. Tooling is reviewing keying and a visible identity.
5 pointsClear the previous match when the insert is removed, otherwise yesterday's correct identification may keep approving whatever is fitted next
3 pointsLeah's point also applies to an unreadable replacement. That needs an explicit unaccepted state and an assigned person to resolve it; the operator should not inherit a prompt to confirm until the screen becomes happy
16 pointsWhat will confirm the proposed keying is actually fitted on the replacement inserts? A design decision will not alter the spare already in stores.
8 pointsTooling will check both circulating inserts and the spare. Nothing modified yet; recipe matching remains unapproved.
14 pointsPlease include the spare in the eventual demonstration too. I would like to hear whether the setter can distinguish both family and orientation without being told which insert the demonstrator has chosen.
2 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .