the puck turns after pickup, so why are we moving pickup points?

After it clears the tray, before the wrist changes direction. Same puck visible throughout. No obvious bump into anything

Has maintenance checked the actual contact and retention arrangement? A square-looking pickup can still leave a part poorly held. I'd want that checked before deciding the later movement is the cause.

Saved. Maintenance is comparing the fitted pads with the drawing. One has a polished strip, but that alone doesn't tell me much

Compare the puck's actual contact surfaces too. Does that strip line up with the intended grip area, or is the pad meeting an edge? An offset might move the contact, but it should not be used to conceal an unexplained mismatch.

Owen, agreed. Henry, the turn starting after clearance was useful detail, not a reason to skip the grip inspection.

Is this limited to one puck batch? I've seen a contact problem blamed on tool wear because nobody noticed the incoming surface had changed.

We don't know the batch spread. Kept the filmed puck and two others from its tray. The older job notes say aluminium puck, which is impressively unhelpful

Then keep the old complaints unassigned. The current retained samples can support a proper comparison without becoming evidence about every earlier turn somebody remembers.

What does maintenance see when the fitted pad is compared with the intended profile? I'm more interested in that answer than in whether the surface looks shiny.

Wrong relief profile on one pad. Supplier confirms it's for another puck variant. The spare shelf has both variants under one description, so we're checking that too

That gives you a concrete mismatch. It still leaves the condition of the other pad and the current program to review. Has the toolmaker specified the complete pair for this variant?

Ben, yes, complete pair matters. Replacing the obviously wrong one with the nearest loose spare could preserve half the problem.

Complete pair specified, both being replaced. Alex, controls has the saved versions and is checking the accumulated pickup edits against that assembly

Thanks for answering that, Henry. A mechanical explanation and a reviewed program belong together before the return check; neither needs to pretend it explains the undocumented old batches.

Can stores distinguish the two variants from the actual pad features when the bag label is missing? The common description already failed once.

Toolmaker supplied the distinguishing feature for each. Stores has separated them. No transfer trial yet, but at least the next replacement won't be chosen by bag colour

Let us know whether the retained puck stays put in the reviewed check. And include the other relevant pucks when that initial comparison is sound; one cooperative example won't settle the intended range.