Current version saved. The operators notice the angle once the grip closes, but nobody has isolated what the spacer does immediately before contact.

I would ask maintenance to inspect the finger attachments and contact surfaces, source pocket and tray location under the proper isolation procedure. Photograph the as-found condition. Cleaning first can remove the thing that explains the change.

Can you compare the same identified spacer in the troublesome pocket and a position that usually works?

And define what usually works means. One successful pickup does not establish a sound reference position.

We have a repeatable seating difference before closure with the same spacer. Maintenance found wear at a tray locating contact; they are checking it against the drawing before any repair.

That is worth pursuing. Did they check the opposing locating contact as well? Replacing one face without understanding how the tray is constrained can leave the seating inconsistent for a different reason.

Make sure the tray exchange is in the eventual comparison. Operators need to know the restored condition survives removing and replacing the tray, not only a carefully arranged maintenance setup.

Both contacts were checked. The specified locating component has been replaced, and the same spacer now seats consistently in the static comparison. The accumulated program changes have not yet been reviewed.

Then don't restore normal use on the static result alone. The adjusted pickups still need assessment.

Who owns that program assessment and the subsequent tray-exchange comparison?

Keep the wear finding with that request, Dinesh. The reviewer needs to know which physical reference changed back, not merely that maintenance says the tray is fixed.

Our maintenance lead owns both checks, with the wear record and saved versions attached. Thank you, Elena; tray removal had been missing from the proposed comparison. Handling acceptance is still pending.