This is a fixture-sample transfer package, separate from the damaged delivery I asked about recently. Its UR5e external labels match our order, but the arm connection cable arrangement differs from the guide. Five days asking the unnamed Chinese seller for an applicable manual. I've left it unpowered; what should make the discrepancy clear enough for a technical answer?
Send the external assembly and cable identifiers with the guide revision and marked pages. Show the actual connection arrangement beside the conflicting drawing, without disconnecting or opening anything for the photograph. Which details differ visibly?
I would ask for the person responsible for installation documentation, not only confirmation that the sales labels match. The practical problem is that your installer cannot tell which instruction belongs to the supplied cable arrangement. A response that merely repeats the model name leaves them in the same position, even if that response is perfectly accurate about the order label.
The connection layout around the supplied arm cable is different. I can show that in external photographs; I haven't opened anything to investigate. I'll pair those with the actual guide pages rather than just ask for another manual.
Keep two possible answers open: wrong documentation, or a supplied arrangement that needs further comparison with the order. The seller should identify which situation they believe exists. You should not have to choose one before they will look at the photographs.
Let the qualified installer review any answer against the physical items. A forwarded assurance can lose its conditions; better to retain the original technical response and the specific drawing it refers to.
Does the guide identify the cable assembly separately from the arm? I am asking because a correct arm drawing may still be paired with instructions for a different supplied cable.
It doesn't give me a clear link to this cable assembly. That's now included in the request. The seller has passed it to a technical contact, but I have no applicable drawing yet.
That missing link should stay in the handover when they answer. Whoever maintains the station later will need the cable identity and the applicable instructions together; otherwise replacing the cable could restart this entire discussion. I would keep the old guide too, marked as the document that prompted the query rather than silently overwriting it.
Will, retaining every attachment is useful for the enquiry, but the installer should not have to choose among them during the work. There needs to be one clearly identified applicable set once the comparison is settled.
Agreed. I meant an enquiry archive, separate from the approved working instructions. I would not leave both guides side by side under a folder called current.
A revised guide has arrived. The technical contact names our supplied cable assembly in the response. I've given both to the installer for comparison; no connection or power-up work has started.
Have them record whether the original marked discrepancies are actually answered. A new guide may resolve some points while leaving another connection unexplained, and the status should reflect that instead of simply saying manual received.
And keep any applicability limits with the guide. A document covering this delivered assembly may not cover a later substituted cable just because its connector looks similar.
The installer confirms the revised guide covers the supplied arrangement and answers the marked mismatch. That closes my documentation question. The planned installation still needs its own procedure and checks; I haven't treated the email as commissioning completed.
Thank you for returning with the actual answer. Make the installer-reviewed set the one maintenance receives, with the correspondence retained separately. That should save the next person from starting with the obsolete picture you were sent.