Our setup uses Universal Robots UR5e for fixture-to-tray transfer with a molded plastic sleeve in a small assembly handling cell.
We've repeatedly adjusted pickup points as handling becomes unreliable.
Although the tray appears unchanged, the grip no longer looks as square.
I'd like an inspection sequence that helps us identify the cause before making further teaching changes or attributing it to the arm.
@JoBrooks0853 Reviewing the recording, I can see consistent seating in the checked fixture before pickup. The workpiece changes angle during gripping rather than arriving in that position.
Preserve the current settings and pause further nudges.
Have maintenance inspect finger mounting, contact surfaces and tray seating under the proper isolation procedure, using that observation to guide the checks.
I've checked the maintenance history and found a pad replacement preceding the initial pickup-point correction. That establishes a relevant sequence of changes to investigate.
You're right; the history supports a check, not a conclusion. Inspect the pad installation and gripping surfaces while retaining tray location in the investigation.
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.
With multiple point changes already in our history, I'm unsure how to distinguish tooling and tray effects. How did you structure that comparison on your setup?
For my setup, a documented reference configuration anchored the investigation while maintenance assessed individual conditions. Discovering wear didn't mean we automatically restored older pickup coordinates.
@LeoCarter0971 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.
@JoBrooks0853 The relationship between the initial points and the present setup hasn't been verified. I'm retaining the current configuration instead of assuming the original positions would restore a known condition.
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.
Our supervised comparison has identified variation in tray seating and wear on the contact surfaces. That gives us two observed conditions to address in the investigation.
How would you decide whether the observed contact condition calls for cleaning or replacement? Is there a criterion beyond whether the surface looks worn?
Use the tool maker's maintenance criteria and a qualified inspection. Appearance alone won't tell you whether cleaning restores an acceptable contact surface.
The observed rotation gives us an inspection plan: retain the configuration and have maintenance assess tooling and seating before further point changes or trials.
I'm keeping attribution to the arm open pending that work.