The station log says pickup corrected three times. I watched the recording and the puck seems level in its nest, then tilts as the fingers touch it. Nobody has written down which finger contacts first.
I'm the network person who inherited the support folder, not the person to retouch this robot. I want to send maintenance a useful inspection request instead of another vague arm drifting report. Where would you start?
Have maintenance compare the fitted set with the tooling drawing, including mounting and contact faces, with the equipment isolated for inspection. Like for like is not a measurement.
Could still be the puck sitting wrong, Jonas. Your first post says seems level from the recording. I'd want the seating checked before we all decide the finger change explains it.
That would help. Keep them identified as three observations (not three independently measured errors), since the camera angle is common to all of them.
And stop adding pickup corrections while the inspection is unresolved. Maintenance and the programmer need a known setup to work from, not a fourth undocumented version.
Yes. Toolroom compared both sets. One replacement contact has a different relief from the drawing. Nest seating and mounting checks passed. They are remaking the affected finger.
Useful to have the nest checked too. Did toolroom explain how the wrong relief got into the replacement? That sounds like something which could repeat next time you need a set.
They used an earlier machining file. Drawing was current, file wasn't. Stores is holding that file reference out of the reorder notes until toolroom supplies the corrected one.
Get the programmer to review all three pickup corrections after the correct contact is fitted and checked. You do not want the new finger inheriting compensation for the old mistake.
Harish, fitted and dimensionally checked now; programmer's pickup trial hasn't run. Jane, maintenance accepts the fitted set with toolroom's check sheet. That responsibility is finally written down.