I've rewritten the first paragraph to say limited improvement on the first tray, followed by a miss on replacement. Both tray identities are available. I didn't keep attempt counts, so there's no percentage claim.

Empty grip at pickup. The puck stayed in its pocket. The replacement tray looked seated against the new locator, but we didn't record its pocket position against the fixture reference before that attempt.

I'd compare those two identified trays against the locator before buying another guide, including the actual surfaces it touches; a matching outside shape can hide a different locating relationship.

And keep the pickup revision with that comparison. Actually, the complete fitted tool too.

Anika's suggestion makes sense, but I'd avoid calling the replacement tray wrong before measuring it. Your locator may be assuming something that the tray drawing never promised.

Both trays conform to their drawings. Toolmaker found the locator bears on an outer edge whose relationship to the pockets differs between these two approved tray types. The replacement wasn't loose; our locating assumption was incomplete.

Who owns that distinction in the operating setup? If two tray types are allowed, the next person needs to know whether the locator changes, the recipe changes, or the proposal needs redesign before either is used.

Please keep both tray references in the stores record too, Leo; otherwise we can supply a perfectly correct replacement and look like we've caused a fault merely by delivering it.

The fixture designer is revising the locator to use the defined tray locating features for both approved types. No extra pickup offsets proposed. Our integrator owns checking that revision with the existing job and complete tool.

Has the revised locator been made, or is that still the proposal?

Worth asking. A report can slide from designer reviewing to locator corrected in one enthusiastic sentence.

Still proposed, Priya. Isaac, I've kept that wording explicit. The only completed finding is that the old locator used an edge that didn't locate both pocket patterns consistently.

That already makes the update more useful than our usual works except sometimes, and doesn't require you to predict the designer's result.

Will the new comparison include removing and replacing each tray, not merely several pickups after somebody has seated it carefully once?

Yes, repeated reloads of both types are in the check. Revised locator is now fitted; the integrator has retained the intended grip and program conditions. We are recording attempts and outcomes this time rather than relying on my impression.

Keep the original miss in the final account even if this works. It explains why the first promising runs weren't enough and why you tested both tray types.

The supervised comparison is complete: both approved tray types were repeatedly reloaded and all recorded pickups held the puck as intended. Fixture and program review completed together. Final update retains the first improvement, later empty grip, locating-reference finding and the scope of this check.