The mounting features are symmetric, but the part datum isn't. The setup sheet names the insert family without a revision. Two gaps already

Ask the fixture designer to review asymmetric keying using those drawings. A configuration table should also link the insert's identity and revision to the applicable part and recipe.

Can the key do double duty and prove it's the right insert? I'd like fewer checks if they actually cover the same thing

@NadiaAli0204 The keying could contribute to identification if the other insert can't engage the intended seat. Have the designer demonstrate that comparison as part of the review.

Could isn't proof. Two family inserts might share the key, and the correct one could still sit on debris.

@ChloeBell0657 You're right; I compressed distinct requirements into that answer. Identity, orientation and full seating each need assessment, even when a feature contributes to several of them.

@MinaArcher0424 Am I understanding correctly that reading an identity code doesn't also show the insert is seated properly?

Yes. Identifying an insert and establishing its installed condition answer different questions, so the integrator needs to define how each requirement will be confirmed.

@MinaArcher0424 On my setup, two inserts had good labels and shared a storage slot. Preparation was confusing even though the drawings were clear.

The changeover requirements are clearer, but I can't yet say our insert arrangement establishes the correct setup. The tooling and recipe checks still need to be assessed together

@NadiaAli0204 The open decision follows from that distinction: the checks are better defined, while the tooling and recipe arrangement still needs assessment.