@NaomiAllen0332 Looking through my quotes, neither contains an assembled load sheet. The gripper and adapter have separate drawings, while the fittings are absent from the component list.

Give each supplier an identical list and request the complete mass and centre of gravity relative to a named origin. You'll then have a usable comparison basis.

@NaomiAllen0332 When you say origin, do you mean the reference point for their measurements? I can see how that could get overlooked.

Yes, with the axes identified too. Otherwise an offset number can look precise while describing a different point on the assembly.

@NaomiAllen0332 Usable for comparison, maybe. Mass and centre of gravity still aren't a complete suitability assessment; the inertia and moment constraints matter too.

Agreed, I meant the comparison basis. Your integrator still needs the complete load assessed against the applicable documentation, including moment and inertia constraints.

I'd like to show empty and loaded configurations in one document so separate drawings don't diverge. Is that workable for the load review?

Yes, if each configuration is clearly labelled and tied to its own values. Show where your part sits rather than just adding its mass.

I had a separate setup where tooling documented the adapter but purchasing left it out. Each department's sheet appeared complete until we compared the assembled configuration

That's familiar. My adapter is in the tooling pack, while the quote just names the gripper. I'll give the complete assembly one reference.

Make sure the assembly reference identifies the finger version. A generic description won't establish the intended geometry when quotation pictures show different lengths.

@ElliotBrooks0857 I've checked the quotations and their finger arrangements differ. I also left the part orientation unspecified between suppliers, so I need to rebuild the comparison basis.

Define the part presentation the task requires, then let suppliers propose their tools against it. Different designs are comparable when each describes its configuration for the same requirement.

If the load is offset, does that make shorter fingers the obvious solution?

Worth requesting as an alternative, but check access and release. A compact tool is no bargain if it can't do your task.

My separate setup had a compact tooling proposal that moved the body closer to the fixture. We had to assess that clearance as part of considering the shorter design

I can move the purchase review forward by requesting comparable data for the whole assembly and a qualified load assessment. That answers my information question without settling suitability in advance.

That gives your supplier request a clear purpose. The actual suitability decision still belongs with the assessment you've identified.