Does that stable family actually recur, Bruno, or are we inventing work for the machine?

Fair question. I mean a real recurring order from Sarah's workload, not a convenient bag we can keep demonstrating to visitors. Without one, narrowing the trial could be self-deception.

We do have one recurring size, but it's not most of the work. The awkward bit is me making it present nicely between orders. I've been counting that as development, then doing it again.

What would happen to those orders if you left the trial alone for a month?

Separate repeat setup time from genuinely one-off development. Recurring development is maintenance wearing a hopeful label.

Zara, I like that distinction. We had a change plate that took an afternoon once and saved time afterwards. I wouldn't charge that afternoon to every batch, but I would count every adjustment it still needed.

Farah, we'd pack manually as before. No customer commitment depends on the robot. Zara, thanks; the same bag-edge adjustment has been in my development notes on three separate orders. It belongs in operating effort.

Then stop building for now. You have enough existing work to measure before adding another guide.

Would a limited comparison on that recurring size answer the question without changing the tooling again?

Include manual packing under the same order conditions, with preparation and interruptions visible on both sides.

I'd support that comparison, Sarah. But I'd let somebody who isn't fond of your fixture keep the time. I can turn a minor intervention into nothing in my own notes without even noticing.

Our packing lead will observe a bounded comparison on the recurring size. No new guide for it. We agreed to count preparation, my interventions and changeover, then compare total attended time with manual packing.

Who can call it finished if the comparison is poor? Not only the person who built it.

And who would own it if it works? A narrow success still needs a handover.

Farah's second question is underrated. I've seen a trial pass and then sit unused because the builder was the only person willing to change it over.

Ella, the packing lead can stop further work on it. Farah, ongoing ownership is not agreed, so the comparison alone can't justify putting it into production. I'm relieved that stopping is an actual option now.

Keep that ownership question on the decision. A time saving nobody can maintain is not finished work.

Please post the result when the comparison happens. I'd be interested even if it ends with manual packing winning; that would answer the question your next guide was about to postpone.