I wrote that I had the enclosure-loading trial running with very little effort. Reading it again, that is a generous description of pressing start on a job somebody else had prepared.
The demonstrator chose the nest, checked the tool and arranged the first tray. I loaded later trays and followed the supervised sequence. I enjoyed it and still think the setup is promising, but the review makes my part sound much bigger than it was. I want to correct that without replacing a positive impression with an equally unsupported negative one.
Keep the positive impression, then describe that division of work where you currently say little effort. The prepared nest and tray are part of what you experienced, not a reason to pretend you disliked the robot.
Jamie, I agree on the title, but I would avoid making the update sound like a retraction of the whole experience. A good supervised trial is still useful to report when its boundaries are clear.
Maya, I changed later trays with the demonstrator checking seating. Ravi, one enclosure needed referring back to him when it didn't settle. That intervention isn't in my account either.
Exactly. I meant help with the judgement as well as hands-on work. Otherwise readers may think you identified and handled that awkward enclosure alone.
Leo, a short account of that enclosure may be more useful than a broad sentence about expert help. It shows where the demonstrator mattered without making every successful transfer sound doubtful.
Updated the title to describe a supervised trial. The opening now names the preparation I did not do, and the awkward-enclosure paragraph explains the help. I left the old wording visible in the edit note.