The locator helped until we exchanged the puck tray

I've changed it to improvement on the original tray, exchange not yet repeatable. The second tray looks the same from above but I haven't compared the locating edges closely.

Were the successful repeats new trays of pucks, or repeated picks from the same loaded arrangement? That changes how much input variation the trial actually covered.

Same tray, replenished by hand. Pucks came from one sample batch. I have added both details. The first update only said repeated successful cycles, which was rather generous shorthand.

Could the tray be located on a different edge after the exchange, before you spend time measuring all its pockets?

I'd look at that cheap check too, with the setup isolated for the tooling inspection; a tray can seem located while the wrong feature has parked against your new stop

Is the intended loading orientation shown anywhere the person exchanging the tray can see it?

Not yet, Sam. The locator drawing assumes the long plain edge faces it. On the second tray a folded lip occupies that side. Tooling has both trays for comparison.

Does that second tray have a different revision, or is the lip an unrecorded alteration to the same design?

Different supplier drawing, though our stores description groups them together. Neither is damaged. I hadn't realised we had two designs in circulation.

Then please don't solve the update by calling the second tray a bad tray. It may be perfectly decent at its old job and unsuitable for your particular locator

Are both designs needed here, Jordan, or could you keep one in this cell while the other stays with its existing work?

Production would prefer one design here. Tooling is checking the plain-edge tray and locator as a defined combination, while stores separates the descriptions. Nothing says the lip tray is scrap.

Will that defined combination include a practical orientation check for the person replenishing it?

Yes, Sam, tooling has added the locating-edge view. The agreed repeat trial will include removing and replacing the specified tray and different accepted pucks, not just leaving it seated.

That sounds like a useful next test. Leave your earlier result visible too, with the limits you added; otherwise the next person only sees that you changed your mind and misses why

Have you run that exchange trial or only agreed its contents?

Only agreed it, Harish. The revised update says trial planned. Thanks, Felix, for the reporting advice. I kept the original observation and put the tray limitation directly beside it.

Please post what happens with the actual exchanges, that was the missing bit I wanted to understand.