And please don't let the nicest phone photo become the reference part; shiny bits are very cooperative when photographed from the forgiving side.

Keep the untouched condition for each sample as well as the after-handling view. Otherwise the team can spend a whole meeting arguing about which marks came from the pads and nobody can actually answer, even if the lighting is agreed.

Quality can own the appearance decision. Some current samples have no before record, so I'll keep them for discussion rather than call every mark gripper damage.

Who will recognise the approved pad after replacement, including its material and contact shape? Softer is not an orderable description.

Ask for the supplier's proposed pad specification before treating it as a repeatable candidate.

We had samples that looked different after someone wiped them. I don't know your finish, but I would agree preparation with quality and keep that recorded too. Otherwise the pad comparison includes a cleaning comparison nobody intended.

Quality identified a faint incoming ring on an untouched bezel that we had blamed on contact. Fresh samples now have before views, and the supplier has identified the proposed pads.

So the pad wasn't making that ring, though it may still be making other marks; good reason not to sentence it from the old pile.

What appearance decision did quality make about the incoming ring? Its origin matters for the tooling comparison, but the receiving shift also needs to know whether that part belongs in the acceptable pile or the hold pile.

The ring is acceptable against their signed examples. A separate scuff is not. Bench comparisons now distinguish those, and both current and proposed pads still need the full handling assessment.

That may save buying pads to cure an acceptable incoming feature. What happens to the separate scuff with the proposed material?

In the controlled bench comparison, the proposed pads avoided that scuff on the recorded samples. Holding was maintained, but one bezel followed a pad briefly on opening instead of settling directly into the nest.

Record that delayed separation as a release observation, including the receiving support and sample identity. It is enough to stop calling the candidate a complete improvement, but not enough to identify why it happened.

Will the supplier investigate with your receiving nest represented, or just repeat the free-air opening demonstration?

They agreed to include the nest and investigate the delayed separation. Thanks, Sean; the preparation record also stopped us mixing wiped and unwiped samples. Appearance method is agreed, pad selection is not.

Keep the agreed appearance examples with the trial record so the next pad candidate gets the same judgement.