The FR10 demonstration identifies neither our adapter nor our samples

They acknowledge the sample-handling demonstration in the order confirmation, Anna, but say this clip shows the robot works.

It may show that. It still doesn't show the agreed handling.

We once received a useful sample clip attached to the wrong build record. I would ask for a clear link between the unit, assembled tool and identified samples, not simply another caption saying your order.

Could they start with the package identifiers and tool details, then show the same setup handling your samples without the adapter vanishing behind the tray?

The revision and full assembly belong together here. Bruno, does the confirmation identify only the adapter, or also the gripper arrangement and sample task? A clear component close-up may still leave the actual handling scope unanswered.

Zara, revision C. Dinesh, the confirmation also identifies the gripper arrangement and our sample-to-tray task, so I have put all three beside the request rather than ask for an adapter portrait.

Good. Did they say when they'll record that setup, or only that your message has gone to the workshop?

Lin, one continuous view would be useful if practical, but I wouldn't make cinematic perfection the new requirement. Identifiable linked views can answer a specific gap too.

Yep, linked views would do; I meant show that the detailed tool and the handling clip belong together, not insist they hire a camera crew.

Anna, only forwarded to the workshop so far. Jonas and Lin, I have asked for linked views of the actual setup and kept the missing points explicit; no recording booking confirmed.

Has anyone confirmed that revision C is fitted yet?

Worth asking before waiting for a video of the wrong assembly.

The workshop has now sent a photograph identifying revision C on the assembled adapter, Clara. That helps with the tooling question; the unit identity and sample-handling link remain missing.

Keep that distinction in your response to them. Acknowledging the useful adapter photograph makes the remaining request more precise, and avoids making the workshop repeat a view that already answered one question.

Did the photo show the actual marking, Bruno, or did the email just call it C?

Actual marking visible, Anna. I have thanked the workshop for it and asked for the remaining links using the same assembly.

That sounds reasonable. Have they accepted the remaining request as part of the original demonstration now?

Yes, the technical contact has accepted that scope and says the demonstration still needs arranging. I have not accepted the general-motion clip in its place.