the insert label faces down when it's fitted

JuliaBaker0500 · 20 Aug 2025, 14:06 UTC

Closed
JU
JuliaBaker0500
We need a changeover check for our FR5 cover-loading nest. Two inserts look nearly alike, and their labels disappear underneath once fitted. One also seems able to go in backwards. A photo in the training sheet won't help if nobody can see what they've installed.

15 replies

PR
PriyaCarter1003
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Can the wrong insert fully seat and clamp, or does it only look as though it will? I'd get tooling to check both cases before writing a confirmation box that asks an operator to promise the impossible.

15 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to PriyaCarter1003

Wrong family insert does seat. Reversed one sits proud but the clamp can still be closed. Tooling checked with us, no robot run.

8 points
PR
PriyaCarter1003
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Then you've got two faults to deal with: wrong identity and wrong seating. A readable label helps identity; it won't stop the clamp making a backwards insert look finished.

15 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to PriyaCarter1003

Tooling is proposing an asymmetric locating feature. Controls wants a recipe check against an insert ID. Neither is implemented yet.

17 points
FE
FelixAdams0110
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Keep the ID visible after fitting as well. I've seen beautifully legible labels become invisible at exactly the moment someone needed to check them. Your training sheet can then show the view the operator actually gets.

24 points
OS
OscarBaker0445
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Will that ID distinguish the two families, or just say an insert is present?

12 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to OscarBaker0445

Family identity is the proposal, Oscar. A separate seating check still needs deciding.

15 points
MI
MinaArcher0424
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Have you included the right family with an older insert revision in the discussion? I ask because a family match could still leave the wrong pocket geometry if the design has changed.

14 points
PR
PriyaCarter1003
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Also try choosing the recipe first and changing the insert afterward. That catches a check which only ran when the screen was opened, not when the hardware changed.

14 points
FE
FelixAdams0110
Replying to PriyaCarter1003

Priya, yes, and don't make the operator navigate away and back just to persuade the screen to notice. That is the sort of extra ritual that gets taught as normal.

9 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to MinaArcher0424

Mina, there is an older cover insert in stores with the same family marking. Tooling has put it in the comparison. Priya, changing the insert after recipe selection is now a test case.

7 points
MI
MinaArcher0424
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Good to have found it while the checks are still being designed. Will stores retain a clear list of which revisions are allowed with each recipe? Otherwise the next spare issue may reopen the same problem.

16 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to MinaArcher0424

Stores and controls are building that list together. The new locating feature stops reversed seating in the bench sample, but the family and revision checks still need testing.

17 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to FelixAdams0110

Felix, we've moved the proposed ID location to a visible outer face. Thanks for pushing that; my first drawing still hid half of it behind the clamp.

0 points
PR
PriyaCarter1003
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Try the actual changeover with whoever does it on the other shift once the checks are ready. Especially the old-revision case. Easy to get a perfect result when everyone in the room already knows which insert is wrong.

20 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .