Put a boundary around the next evaluation. Otherwise each new shape becomes another unplanned engineering job before anyone makes the decision.

Support is mostly me. And there is no limit on preparation hours at present.

Separate developing a new presentation from repeating an established one in the record. Combining them could make an improving setup look permanently expensive, or hide recurring adjustment behind the word development.

Theo Abbott, agreed. Would you record individual variants as well? An average across the work could conceal one reliable shape and several that consume most of the attention.

I would. A restricted role for the equipment may be worth considering. That does not mean every shape deserves its own special fixture just because the first one behaved.

Restricted scope still needs a support owner. It doesn't become maintainable merely by having fewer variants.

I've paused new shapes and proposed a time-bounded comparison of the established refill only.

State what outcome ends that comparison: acceptable ongoing effort, a specific unresolved issue worth investigating, or stopping. A time limit without a decision rule can simply produce another request for more time.

Include cleaning, storage and restoring the bench for the next job within that effort. The transfer timing is only one part of the order you are comparing.

Those items are in the draft. No results yet. Workshop lead must agree the effort limit and support owner.

I hope the comparison makes the decision easier. Keep the useful notes whichever way it goes; stopping this packing trial would not erase what you learned about preparing the refills.