I'm reviewing an FR5 transfer concept for 158 packed shipping cartons. Incoming board, print and seams vary; the demo used a smooth sample. I know turning every carton would add preparation work, so what representative evidence should precede a tool decision rather than quietly assume that work away?
Can you agree a sample range with the people who receive and pack the cartons? Retain the awkward surfaces too. The trial should describe their filled condition, contact locations, transfer and release, not simply compare photographs of empty board.
Packing and receiving selected retained filled examples covering the normal range. I've asked the supplier to test those with its proposed presentation, including uncertain-hold response and receiving condition.
Keep the preparation assumptions with that request. If the supplier reorients every example by hand, it should report that as part of the proposed process, not describe the result as unchanged incoming presentation.
Supplier accepted the sample scope but says its preferred contact area requires a controlled carton orientation. That is in the proposed trial conditions now. No trial report received yet.
Will the packer assess that preparation before the tool decision? I would rather know whether it fits the job than discover the operator has become the orientation mechanism afterwards.
Packer timed a preparation comparison on the retained range. Sorting and turning are not negligible for our mixed batches. We're including that estimate alongside a different contact concept, without claiming either works yet.
That creates a fairer comparison. A contact concept that needs no turning might still have other disadvantages; ask for the same holding, release and packaging-condition evidence before ranking them.
Both evidence requests now use that same range and receiving requirement. Original concept remains conditional on extra preparation; alternative still untested. I've removed the bare smooth-sample result from the purchase recommendation.