I have two cap-loading demonstration records, including a UR5e trial. One uses new pocketed trays; the other uses our worn workshop trays. The recorded cycle times look comparable, but the presentation work is different.
I need a shortlist recommendation that explains what the evidence supports. What should a common follow-up trial contain?
Use the same representative tray set and parts for both. Include setup and operator interventions in the record. At present you have two demonstrations of different systems doing different versions of the job.
One supplier offers a replacement tray as part of its package. I omitted that from the opening. We could buy it, but our incoming caps would still need transferring into it.
Complete proposals, although our internal sheet is headed robot comparison. I'll correct the heading. The decision is which process we can support in the available workspace.
Fair correction to my first reply. Identical trays are useful for isolating a tray effect, but a complete-process comparison should include the proposed tray conversion rather than forbid it.
That belongs in the follow-up. A supervised interruption and the documented recovery will tell you who must support the process when ordinary presentation varies.
Define accepted output before comparing speed. A cap lying in a pocket is not necessarily seated correctly, and the videos may be counting different results.
Neither video shows recovery. One skips from a seating miss to the next loaded tray. I've marked that interval as unknown rather than estimating the intervention from the edit.
Only the edited version. Requested the underlying record and a follow-up covering input preparation, accepted output, interruptions and manual work. No ranking change yet; the missing evidence matters more than the current time difference.
Have the people who will refill and recover the station review that trial outline. They may spot a support task the demonstration team considers too obvious to mention.