In the footage, it sits consistently in the checked fixture and turns during gripping. So the crooked position isn't there at the start.

Keep a copy of the current configuration and hold off on further coordinate changes. Under the appropriate isolation procedure, maintenance can use the observed rotation to focus inspection on tooling contact, mounting and tray seating.

I've checked the maintenance history and found a pad replacement preceding the initial pickup-point correction. That establishes a relevant sequence of changes to investigate.

The timing suggests the replacement is responsible. I'd check whether the pads were installed in the specified configuration.

The sequence makes pad installation worth investigating, but it doesn't establish causation. Fixture variation remains a possible contributor even with that maintenance history.

Agreed, I called it too early. Treat the replacement as a lead; verify installation and contact condition alongside tray location before assigning the cause.

On my own setup, we found worn contact surfaces and inconsistent tray seating together. Fixing only the pickup point made the symptoms move around.

@MinaChan1120 With multiple point changes already in our history, I'm unsure how to distinguish tooling and tray effects. How did you structure that comparison on your setup?

We kept a known reference configuration and had maintenance check one condition at a time. We didn't roll back points blindly after finding wear.

Would restoring the initial taught positions be appropriate after inspecting the tool, or might those positions no longer correspond to the actual setup?

@JuliaBell0674 The original points are only a suitable reference if the confirmed tooling, frames and presentation still match. Have the responsible technician review those relationships before planning a supervised check.

The relationship between the initial points and the present setup hasn't been verified. I'm retaining the current configuration instead of assuming the original positions would restore a known condition.

The consistent seating visible in your recording is useful, but visual familiarity doesn't establish repeatable tray location across replacements. Keep that limitation in the inspection scope.

Our supervised comparison has identified variation in tray seating and wear on the contact surfaces. That gives us two observed conditions to address in the investigation.

Would you clean the pads or replace them? I can't tell where routine cleaning stops being enough.

The maintenance decision should follow the tool's documented criteria and qualified assessment. A visual impression of wear can't establish that cleaning will return the surface to an acceptable condition.

@BrunoChen1148 I kept photos of my setup's contact surfaces with the maintenance notes. They helped explain what had changed without relying on 'it used to look better'.