We have retained the marked collars, but no before-handling photographs. The present samples demonstrate a concern, not a controlled comparison between contacts.

What does the proposed softer pad change besides appearance? Contact area, shape or just material? I'd want those differences recorded, because otherwise a better-looking collar gets attributed to softness when the whole grip has changed.

And does the finish owner mean visible under normal inspection, or only under magnification?

That needs agreement, Sara. Use the actual appearance requirement; making every tiny witness mark a reject may be as unhelpful as overlooking a customer-visible one.

The proposal changes pad material, with contact geometry still to be confirmed. Quality is defining the viewing method. I have not authorised the substitution.

Ask the tool supplier to evaluate retention through the intended transfer and release into the real receiving arrangement. Less marking is only one requirement. A pad can improve the appearance test while making release less predictable, so record both in the same comparison.

Hana, would you start with controlled bench handling before asking for the complete motion trial? Seems useful to reject an obviously marking contact early without pretending the bench proves the whole job.

Yes, a staged comparison makes sense. State what the bench stage establishes and carry the surviving option into an appropriately reviewed application trial. I would not demand a full transfer study merely to discover the pad visibly damages the finish on first contact.

Quality has agreed the appearance method. Supplier is preparing a staged comparison with identified collars and declared contact geometry; no new pad results yet.

Who checks pad condition after repeated handling? Fresh pads aren't the whole maintenance story.

Include a condition record in that study request. Jonas can ask the supplier what wear and contamination checks the proposed material needs, without inventing an interval before evaluation.