I want to stop accumulating pickup corrections on our UR5e tray-loading job. The aluminum puck now looks less square in the grip, although the tray appears unchanged. What inspection would distinguish a presentation change from tool wear before maintenance considers another teaching edit?
Compare the puck before closure and after it is held. That gives maintenance a first division to investigate, without deciding the tray is sound just because its outline looks familiar.
And preserve those point versions. The final one may contain several compensations, so finding a mechanical problem will not automatically make that version suitable for the repaired arrangement.
Noah, yes, but don't turn that into automatically loading the oldest copy either. We don't know whether the fixture and tool still match what that copy was taught against.
The maintenance copy and edit history are saved. The visible tilt seems to begin while the puck is still in the tray, but our camera angle is poor. I have asked for a comparison that actually shows its seating before closure.
Is it the same puck every time, Elena? Or rather, can you follow one identified puck between positions instead of comparing whichever one happens to be visible in each clip?
Owen's comparison also needs the tray identity. Different trays that look the same could make a position effect look like a part effect. No need to number the entire factory; just don't lose track of the few items being compared.
Who is covering the held work while maintenance does this, since another operator could arrive and try the latest points without knowing what they were compensating for?
Luis, the job is held with maintenance named as owner, and the next shift has that status. Owen and Priya, we identified the pucks and trays for the comparison; I agree that an anonymous sequence of near-identical parts would be weak evidence.
The same pucks sit square in a removed tray on the inspection support but tilt when that tray is located at the station. Maintenance found a damaged support foot beneath the tray rail. The tray surface was unchanged; the support beneath it wasn't.
That explains why the tray could look fine from above. Have they measured the rail against its installation reference, rather than against the robot's corrected pickup points?
Gabriel, agreed about the oldest copy. I meant keep the history for comparison, not use age as a version-selection rule. Elena now has exactly the sort of physical reference that needs to go with that comparison.
Alistair and Nathan, maintenance measured the low rail position against the fixture reference, replaced the damaged support and restored the specified location. They also checked the assembled tool and found it within its inspection limits. The corrected-point versions remain held while the restored arrangement is reviewed.
Did anyone establish how the foot was damaged? I'm not suggesting another repair before you can move on, but if tray handling is hitting it then the same symptom could come back.
A named owner for that question belongs in the handover even if the cause of the damage is still unknown, otherwise the next shift inherits a repaired foot and no reason to watch that area.
Elena, has the restored arrangement actually handled the identified pucks yet? The inspection sounds useful, but I'd like to know which part of the original complaint disappeared.
And include tray replacement in that check. The tray supported on the bench was square too; the station location is the part of this story that needs exercising.
The supervised checks used the approved restored setup and point version, with the identified pucks and normal tray changes. The pre-grip tilt and crooked hold no longer appeared, and placement and release met the agreed checks. Maintenance has closed this handling fault; the damage-prevention review has its own owner because we still don't know what struck the foot.
That is a handover I could actually use. Restored hardware reference, selected program version, observed result and one remaining maintenance question. Much better than a note saying pickup improved, which would leave the next person wondering which of the edits to keep.