What should I compare when our UR5e sleeve grip changes between batches?
QuinnBowen · 26 Jan 2026, 07:54 UTC
15 replies
Compare the actual parts and the fitted contact assembly, because our recent pad problem was in the mounting face rather than the spare I was ready to order; your later batch might matter, but it isn't a diagnosis yet.
9pointsWe retained an earlier sleeve and three from the troublesome batch. Maintenance has the finger drawing. I've stopped treating the tray label as evidence that everything else stayed the same.
0pointsDo the clips show the sleeve moving during closure, or already sitting crooked beforehand?
13pointsOne side moves as the fingers close. It looks upright before that, but the front view hides the opposite contact. I have marked that uncertainty in the comparison.
8pointsHave inspection compare the relevant sleeve dimensions and contact faces against the current drawing alongside maintenance's isolated assembly check; otherwise a difference between batches could be blamed on the tool without checking the parts.
9pointsWho is keeping the job unavailable while that is checked, so the covering shift doesn't inherit an instruction to get it going with another small correction?
21pointsOur shift lead owns that, Ada. The job is held for the check. The later batch is also separated, but not yet declared bad; inspection hasn't reported back.
10pointsAnd are the saved edits tied to those batches, or just numbered versions?
11pointsNumbered versions with change times. Two can be related to the operator's batch notes; the earliest one cannot. I won't invent a reason for it now.
11pointsThat missing reason belongs in the review too, because restoring an earlier version would still be a choice someone has to justify against the physical setup.
14pointsCan inspection check several current sleeves rather than only the one with the most obvious tilt, while retaining that specific example for comparison with the observed contact?
9pointsThey did. Two later-batch sleeves are outside the specified roundness requirement at the gripping region; the others checked so far meet it. Maintenance found the finger and pad assembly consistent with its drawing.
12pointsDoes that explain the exact sleeve in the clip?
8pointsYes, its identity was retained and it is one of the two. Quality has held the batch for sorting. We still need the controls review and supervised transfer check on accepted sleeves before releasing the job.
19pointsWill the incoming check cover that gripping region now, rather than leaving the first robot miss to discover the next questionable batch?
16pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .