Same job version. The replacement tray stops short at the locator, although its main base contacts look seated from above.

Where does the locator touch the replacement tray before it reaches the intended stop?

A small return flange underneath. I did not include that flange when I drew the added feature around the first tray.

Does that flange match the tray drawing? Do not call the replacement tray wrong before checking it.

And can the loader see that short seating from the normal side? I wouldn't make the fix depend on someone kneeling down to admire your new locator every exchange.

Naomi's drawing check comes first for the geometry. Felix's visibility question still belongs in the revised loading method, even if the designer removes the clash.

Both trays are within their drawing. The flange is allowed; my added locator blocks it. Felix, the normal loading view hides that contact, which helps explain why the first exchange looked fine.

So is the designer revising your locator for both accepted trays?

Theo, agreed. I meant the loader needs a usable seated check after the redesign, not a better view of a clash we decide to keep.

Yes, revised locator proposed with the flange envelope included. The report now names my feature's interference, rather than listing tray variation as the cause. I have also removed the finished-fix caption.

Has the revised feature been made, or is that still a drawing?

Made and checked statically with both identified trays. They reach the intended contacts. Supervised transfer and exchange checks are still to follow.

Who will try the seated check without being shown the hidden contact first?

The covering loader has tried the revised visible check and identified both seated trays without prompts. We have not completed the full transfer comparison yet. Her result is in the report as a loading check.

Keep the original missed exchange beside that progress. It is the reason both trays and the covering loader belong in the remaining trial, not an embarrassing clip to remove.