A student described the pickup better than my maintenance request did: first finger touches, spacer stays put, second finger touches, one edge rises. I had written unreliable pickup and attached a wide video. We have saved the FR10 job versions and kept that spacer. I want the contact sequence to survive the handover instead of disappearing into another list of offsets. What physical comparison would make it useful?
Compare the fitted contact faces and mounting arrangement with the intended tool, using that identified spacer. Also establish how it sits in the source pocket before contact. The student's sequence is useful because it tells maintenance where to look more closely
The spacer sits flat in the inspected pocket. The close view shows a small step between the two pad faces. We do not yet know whether that is intended.
Fiona, one fitted pad is identifiable, the other marking is worn. Robin, maintenance is checking the mounting stack as well. We have not treated the visible step as a diagnosis.
Who owns deciding whether the fitted pair is an acceptable combination? If the markings do not resolve it, the tooling owner needs to define the comparison rather than leave maintenance choosing the most similar spare.
Henry, yes. Noah, can that worn pad be distinguished by its dimensions or features against the available drawings? An unreadable marking need not mean its identity is permanently lost.
Keep the removed pair together while that happens. We've had two investigations create a third mystery pair on the bench because every loose pad looked like spare stock.
Toolmaker identified the worn one from a relief feature and dimensions. It belongs to an older pair. They are checking the complete assembly before specifying the replacement, so the two pads are staying together and labelled.
Retain the current program and its change history for the return assessment. Correcting the mechanical combination will not automatically remove compensating edits introduced while that combination was fitted.
And make the replacement instruction describe a matched pair, if that is what the toolmaker specifies. A single common pad description caused our stores problem.
Henry, the saved versions are with controls. Fiona, pair identification is in the toolmaker's request. Still awaiting the final assembly decision; the teaching note now quotes the actual contact sequence rather than my vague summary.