What should our first paid FR10 connector trial actually answer?

Operator unloads trays into a locating fixture. Some housings catch at the fixture entrance and get turned by hand. I want to reduce that repeated handling, not just move the easy ones faster.

Then investigate the catching before buying a production fixture. Keep identified examples that catch and ones that do not, and have the toolmaker compare their contact with the present entrance.

We have those samples now. My colleague wants to start with a bench study rather than the full robot trial I had in mind.

Sensible smaller question. Still needs a limit and an owner.

And a result you can explain to the operator. 'Toolmaker looked at it' is not much of a handover; which contact causes trouble and what options remain would be useful.

Naomi, does the proposed study include your colleague's time preparing and attending, or only the supplier's invoice? Their original objection was about work inside your shop too.

Only the invoice so far. We've now listed sample preparation, attendance and the joint review as internal hours. The colleague has stopped looking quite so weary.

Good. Give the study a stopping point where you can decide not to continue, rather than automatically turning its findings into a fixture order.

What would count as enough progress for another trial? I'd agree that before the interesting sketches arrive and everybody falls in love with one.

A proposed fix isn't the same as a tested fix. Price the next uncertainty honestly.

We want the contact problem explained and at least one assessable option with a costed trial. Not a guaranteed cure from the bench visit. Stopping after the findings is allowed.

Keep the ordinary non-catching housings in that study as well. Otherwise you may pay for an entrance that solves the exceptional part by making the normal loading task slower.

Ravi, agreed. I also wouldn't assume the catching sample is defective until the part and holder have been compared. A damaged contact can make a perfectly ordinary housing look troublesome.

Both groups are included. The toolmaker has accepted the limited scope and sample list. The study is booked; nothing found or modified yet.

Who records the findings for the next decision, Naomi? Your colleague should not have to rebuild the result from a handful of supplier photographs.

I'll record them with the toolmaker and our operator. The review is a named deliverable, with photographs linked to the actual samples. My colleague will judge the next-stage cost with me.

That is a budget discussion now, not just an arm price.

And the handling aim remains in it. Keep the operator's repeated work visible if the next option improves access by adding another preparation step.

I'd be interested in what the contacts show. No need to wait for a shiny robot trial to report a useful bench finding.