LouisBell0659 · 1 Aug 2026, 08:09 UTC
Is the spacer angled against the finger contacts, or is the entire tool visibly angled relative to the tray? That would help define the first observation.
16 pointsPreserve the pickup revisions and inspect identified spacers, tray seats, finger contacts and mounting under the maintenance procedure. I have suggested that combination before because the physical finding without the compensation history leaves the next person half a story.
14 pointsI'd photograph the as-found arrangement before somebody cleans or reseats things. On another spacer job I had to go back and record a finger reseating as well as the other change; otherwise the comparison sounded much more decisive than it was.
25 pointsThe spacer looks angled in the fingers, Ella, but I haven't compared the whole tool to a reference yet
15 pointsThat narrows what you see, not the cause. Ask tooling to compare actual contacts with the intended assembly before selecting a replacement component.
8 pointsDoes the same spacer sit differently on successive pickups, or are you comparing different pieces?
11 pointsDifferent pieces in ordinary work, so I can't separate part variation from seating repeatability on those observations
22 pointsThen use an identified set for an agreed comparison. Record which piece, which tray location, which tool setup and which program revision each observation belongs to. It is more paperwork than saying crooked, but it gives maintenance something they can reproduce and challenge.
7 pointsDaniel, would you include tray removal and replacement straight away? That's where a normal run can look fine while the next shift inherits something different. I'm asking about the comparison scope, not telling Louis to keep cycling a suspect setup.
3 pointsAfter the initial inspection determines what can be tested. A changeover comparison is useful, but it cannot replace deciding whether the present assembly is fit for that check.
10 pointsTooling has requested the intended finger assembly drawing before choosing what to measure; our handover only identifies the gripper model
13 pointsThat explains why the comparison is stuck, though not why the grip changed. Can the original tool supplier identify the fitted finger arrangement from the available drawings and external details? A generic gripper document is unlikely to settle the contact geometry.
8 pointsWho has the earlier as-built information? The integrator may hold it even if maintenance never received it.
15 pointsThe integrator sent an earlier finger drawing, but it does not match every visible detail on the fitted set, so tooling is checking which revision we actually have
7 pointsThat mismatch belongs in the maintenance notes. Don't quietly relabel the fitted fingers with the drawing's number because it's the only number available. It could be a legitimate later change with a missing handover, but somebody needs to establish that.
13 pointsExactly. A document mismatch is an unresolved configuration question, not proof the fingers themselves are defective.
6 pointsHas the physical inspection found anything independent of the drawing question, such as a recorded seating difference? Keep those observations moving where the approved procedure allows it, rather than waiting for the paperwork to explain every possible feature.
21 pointsNo definite physical fault has been reported yet; the configuration comparison remains open, and I've asked maintenance to retain the as-found results separately from that enquiry
11 pointsWill the eventual revision answer reach the people teaching the points too? They need to know which assembly any future comparison uses.
11 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.