Our UR5e bezel mark changes sides between the comparison photos

Actual bezels retained. No before-handling photos tied to them. Quality has not agreed which marks fail.

Then I'd stop calling them pad marks for now, though keeping the offered pads available for a proper comparison seems reasonable

Can you put a recognisable feature in each picture? We had two sides of a round part described as the same mark. The close-ups were sharp but useless for locating it

Sarah, did you recover the locations from the parts?

Our quality technician is using the fixing notch for orientation and marking locations on a sketch, not the finish.

Jasper, yes. We still had the parts. One line was on the opposite face from the one in the complaint, so we withdrew the supposed before-and-after pair

Any physical decisions back on your bezels?

One real reject confirmed. Other line is a reflection on an accepted bezel. Both retained for the pad comparison.

Does the real reject match the contact area, Grace, or are we still just giving the pads first refusal on the blame?

It overlaps, but no identified before state exists. Cause unknown. David, holding and release are now explicit trial items.

Cheers. Who judges the finish after that trial?

Our quality technician. Same agreed appearance method before and after, identified samples and complete pad arrangements. Supplier accepted that trial scope.

Useful. Keep that confirmed reject in the appearance reference, but don't enter it as newly damaged in a pad trial. The missing before condition doesn't become known because the trial plan is better.