Point changes are saved, but our photos don't identify which spacer or tray was in use. I'll keep those as general views, not before-and-after measurements.

The block looks angled between the fingers. The video doesn't give a good enough view to judge the whole gripper against the tray.

I've seen a locating surface hidden by a seated part, so a tray can look unchanged while the contact underneath deserves attention. I'd inspect that contact, not only the tray outline.

Nina, did yours have a damaged seat or contamination? I would like to know what was actually found before treating either as likely here.

Contamination under the part in that case. Not evidence about Rachel's block; it is why I ask for the hidden contact to be included in inspection.

And don't let 'tray unchanged' become 'tray checked', Rachel. You've already been careful about the pictures, but those two phrases get swapped surprisingly quickly in a handover.

Maintenance found uneven wear on the finger contact pads during inspection. Tray-seat checks are still in progress, and I haven't called the pads the sole cause.

Can they relate that wear to the identified block's contact, rather than just report that the pads look used? A worn component can be real without explaining this particular crooked grip.

I would preserve the current pad identities and dimensions before replacement. Once they're mixed in a spares drawer, a useful physical comparison becomes another memory.

Owen, yes. Our old contact pieces used to land in one box labelled worn. Plenty of evidence, none of it attached to a job.

Elena, maintenance has recorded the contacts against an identified block now. They propose replacing the pads to the documented specification, then reassessing; tray checks haven't shown an obvious obstruction.

Who decides which saved pickup revision is used for that reassessment? Leaving the compensating edits in place without review could make a sound physical repair look wrong.

The integrator and maintenance lead will agree that together. I'm not asking the operator to restore an old point just because its date looks reassuring.

That is the distinction I wanted. A saved version is traceable evidence, not automatic permission to run it after the hardware changes.

Will the comparison include more than the one block used for inspection? I'd keep the scope small enough to understand, but not quietly turn one good grip into a statement about every spacer.

I'd also keep changeover in that plan. My operators can settle into a routine that looks repeatable until the next tray arrives, which is part of the ordinary job rather than an exceptional test.

Pads are replaced and the agreed supervised comparison looked squarer on the identified samples. Changeover checks are still outstanding. Thanks Omar for asking about the point revision before we tried it.

Useful progress. I'd report the physical finding and limited comparison together, with changeover still open, rather than turn this into proof that all earlier drift complaints were pad wear.