I added a tray locator to our Fairino FR10 setup for tray-to-fixture transfer with a small plastic sleeve in a shared assembly workshop.
A few supervised runs looked more consistent, then a tray replacement brought another missed pickup.
I want to share the result accurately.
The change seems useful, but 'fixed' feels a bit generous.
Was the replacement tray fully seated when that miss happened? Check that observation before assuming the locator or taught point needs another change.
Your update can describe reduced movement alongside the incomplete-seating miss. Have a seating check reviewed and compare handling through routine tray replacements under supervision before making a broader success claim.
@ThomasBrooks0799 My separate fixture trial improved one condition without resolving changeover. Describing the remaining failure directly communicated more than forcing the whole result into a success-or-failure label.
@AlexAbbott0037 That's a convenient split. The original problem was missed pickups, and ordinary replacement still produces one. You haven't established that seating is simply an operator issue.
@DineshBaker0473 You're right; that label would overstate it and blame the operator. Describe the locator's observed benefit and the unresolved seating process together as an incomplete handling improvement.
@AlexAbbott0037 The tool and program were held constant during the locator trial. That helps interpret the observed change, but the limited supervised sample still constrains the conclusion.
@SarahAllen0328 It strengthens the comparison. It doesn't establish how reliably your complete setup handles normal variation and tray changes, which is the larger claim you're deciding whether to make.
@AlexAbbott0037 I've settled how to report it: less movement, but an incomplete-seating miss still matters. Any 'fixed' claim depends on reviewed seating checks and supervised replacement results.