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

@IsabelAllen0300 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.

The maintenance notes show contact pads were replaced before the first point adjustment. That's the first useful clue I've found in the history.

@IsabelAllen0300 The timing suggests the replacement is responsible. I'd check whether the pads were installed in the specified configuration.

@NoahBennett0716 The sequence makes pad installation worth investigating, but it doesn't establish causation. Fixture variation remains a possible contributor even with that maintenance history.

@ElenaAllen0340 Agreed, I called it too early. Treat the replacement as a lead; verify installation and contact condition alongside tray location before assigning the cause.

My separate handling setup had both worn gripping surfaces and variation in tray seating. Coordinate corrections alone gave inconsistent results because they didn't address either underlying condition.

How did you keep those two effects apart? Ours already has enough point edits to make the history messy.

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?

Only if they match the verified setup. Tooling, frames or presentation may have changed; your responsible technician should compare the configuration before any supervised validation.

We haven't verified that match yet. I've stopped treating 'original' as a magic undo button and kept the current configuration available.

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.

The supervised comparison found seating variation as well as worn gripping surfaces. So we really do have more than one thing to investigate.

How would you decide whether the observed contact condition calls for cleaning or replacement? Is there a criterion beyond whether the surface looks worn?

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.

@NoahBennett0716 For my own tooling, photographs attached to the maintenance history made condition changes easier to compare. They provided a more useful reference than recollections about how the grip once looked.