I cannot accept our delivered UR5e configuration for housing loading. Different label suffix and alignment-adapter interface from the confirmed fixture drawing; seller in China says equivalent. Tooling unfitted after 26 days without a comparison.
Can you identify the adapter separately from the arm in the arrival records? I mean an actual supplied reference, not an identifier inferred from the shape. That would help keep the visible interface difference separate from the label-suffix question.
We once had a replacement plate arrive before anyone had agreed who would update the setup sheet, and the shift kept working from the old drawing. Whatever remedy is proposed here needs the installed configuration and documentation considered together.
Arrival records name the arm only. I sent the two interfaces side by side and asked for the supplied adapter reference. Our installer has the fitting hold recorded.
Technical reply identifies an alternative adapter and proposes modifying our fixture to suit it. No cost or responsibility agreed. The suffix explanation is also incomplete.
Then you have a proposed change to evaluate, not the promised comparison completed. Ask them to offer supply of the confirmed arrangement as well; modifying your fixture would change what your team must own after delivery.
Does their modification proposal show the resulting tool position and all affected interfaces? A sketch of the extra holes alone would not tell the installer whether the original housing-loading setup still applies.
It is only a hole-change sketch. I have declined fixture modification and requested the confirmed adapter plus a complete identification comparison. Nothing fitted or altered; their supply answer remains outstanding.