Our tooling is still unfitted after fifty-two days of equivalence replies. The delivered FR5 package has a different label suffix and an adapter with a different connection position from the drawing the seller accepted. Which identified comparison should I require?
Put the accepted drawing and delivered assembly identities side by side, then ask the seller to identify the supplied adapter drawing. Equivalent needs an explanation here, especially with the connection moved.
That gives them an actual clash to answer. Have you asked for the originally agreed adapter as one option, instead of treating a tooling redesign as already decided?
Who would support the modified assembly if they propose moving your bracket? That responsibility can get lost between the seller and your tool designer.
Get the complete proposed arrangement assessed before choosing a substitute. Moving the connection or adding another plate can change the tool position, carried mass and load distribution as well as access. Your designer needs the actual adapter identity and data, not a promise that the holes match. I'd price the original agreed supply and any assessed alternative separately, including installation, application checks and support. Otherwise you can end up paying to make the delivered difference disappear while the order still looks fully satisfied.
And ask whether the agreed adapter is available. I mean the identified item, not another suitable-adapter description that starts this conversation again.
Seller cannot offer a date for the agreed adapter. Purchasing has requested a return proposal with packing and cost responsibilities specified; we are not proceeding with the tooling redesign.
Has the seller agreed to that return, or is the proposal still outstanding? Keep the collection arrangements separate until there is an actual agreement.