Looks square in the source. I can only see the tilt clearly after pickup, so closure itself is still an observation gap.

Which tool and program revisions are in use now? Keep the accumulated edits with the physical inspection so the reviewer can relate the symptom to the actual setup.

Also identify the tray and how it seats. Looking unchanged from above doesn't establish the locating contacts or the presentation of that particular block. You need evidence before and after closure, not just two impressions of the finished grip.

Have maintenance inspect the contacts, mounting and any replaceable inserts under the appropriate isolation procedure. Wear or an unmatched insert could matter, but I wouldn't pick either as your cause from a tilted part alone.

And save the current program first. Guessing which nudge to undo can bury useful history.

Tool identified and edit history retained. Maintenance found unequal contact wear. Source seating hasn't been measured yet, so I'm not calling that wear the complete explanation.

Who decides the repaired tool reference and program to use for the supervised comparison? Finding worn contacts doesn't tell an operator which historical pickup version to restore.

Tooling and the integrator need that decision together. I'd also retain the worn contacts or their inspection record. Once replaced, they are much harder to compare with what the tilt was doing.

Has anyone checked the tray locating surfaces while this review is open? The visible tool finding shouldn't turn the unmeasured source into an assumed good reference.

Tray check is assigned, not complete. Tooling has specified the matched replacement contacts and the integrator is reviewing the pickup edits. Nothing retaught just to accommodate the worn set.

Useful. Check closure with the reviewed assembly before judging the transported block alone.

And make the observation method usable by maintenance. If only the integrator can tell whether a block began square, the next wear question will bring them back for the same basic evidence.

Keep release in the eventual verification too. Restoring the contacts may improve the held appearance while changing where the block reaches the receiving tray. The intended transfer still needs checking end to end.

Matched contacts fitted. Initial supervised comparison with the reviewed program shows a square grip and clean release. Tray-exchange comparison remains outstanding; this isn't a return-to-production statement.

Was the initial source seating check satisfactory on the tray used, independently of the successful transfer? Keep that observation separate so the next person knows what was actually inspected.

Yes, seating checked on that identified tray. The replacement tray hasn't been compared. I've separated those entries from the grip and release results.

Please return after the tray exchange; first-tray success doesn't settle that last uncertainty.

Still pending. Thanks, Oscar; we now have a contact finding and a bounded successful comparison, with the exchange check and production release left for the owners.