@DanielAllen0304 Barely, but yes. The notes catch nudges the clips don't show clearly. Across the candidates, most misses followed tray replacement.

A shared tray trial sounds useful, with ordinary tray replacement included. Set acceptable placement and operator involvement in advance, and log both against each candidate.

@DanielAllen0304 We had a separate transfer application where the locating step was awkward, but the continuous run looked fine. A tray replacement by another operator exposed it.

@AmaraBrooks0861 Robot cost or fixture cost? Our meeting keeps getting stuck there.

In my own comparison, we included the cost in the complete package and identified its source as fixture work. How we categorised it didn't change the need to fund it.

I'd also keep the gripper identical to make the comparison fair. It takes another variable out while you investigate tray location.

Same gripper, unfair adapter? That's still a skewed comparison if the mounting suits one arm better

@AnilAli0201 Fair correction; I overstated that. Keep the gripping requirement consistent, document adapters and tuning, and assess the actual proposed tools where a shared gripper would distort things.

Could one candidate bring a custom fixture, then? I'm unsure what you hold constant if each proposal has different tooling.

It can, provided the fixture belongs in the purchase scope. Use equivalent incoming samples and acceptance requirements, and account for fixture cost and changeover effort.

I've kept the awkward samples. Normal batch variation, not specially selected demo-ruining rejects.

@SaraBarnes0548 Use the awkward samples with the straightforward ones. Testing only the troublesome end of the mix could be as misleading as testing only perfect samples

@AnilAli0201 Empty pockets happen here too. How do we test that without improvising around a moving arm?

Have the equipment lead define the test and expected response. The empty pocket should be prepared under safe access conditions, not created during motion.

@DanielAllen0304 I've settled the next decision: use a common tray trial with agreed placement and intervention limits. Any choice of Fairino FR10 will depend on that result; the existing videos don't settle it.

A defined trial is a useful decision in itself. Making the selection depend on it matches the limits of the clips.