Keep the confirmed drawing revision beside the delivery views. Similarity to a catalogue picture will not establish which configuration they agreed to supply.

The receipt names the arm but gives no separate adapter reference. I've sent the confirmed drawing revision and marked the visible locating-face difference without trying to fit our tooling.

Ask for an adapter drawing and supplied reference. Equivalent needs to answer the fitter's interface question, not just the order label.

Have your tooling reviewer name the relevant locating, fastening and resulting tool-position requirements. That gives the seller a concrete comparison to answer, and may reveal differences that a front photograph cannot show.

Our reviewer has listed those requirements, including the locating shoulder and clearance behind the plate. Seller says the suffix is a supply revision, but still has not identified the adapter drawing.

That answers their explanation of the suffix only. I would leave the visible interface discrepancy as its own unresolved line.

And keep stores from assigning the ordered adapter reference to the delivered one while identification is open.

Has purchasing asked who owns the technical answer, rather than another forwarded equivalence message?

A technical contact has now supplied the delivered adapter drawing. Our reviewer found its shoulder conflicts with the recess in our confirmed fixture interface; it is not suitable as supplied for this tool.

That is the finding to put back to the seller. Ask them to propose how they will meet the confirmed interface, with the technical comparison and any commercial terms explicit; do not silently turn it into your workshop's modification job.

They proposed supplying a different adapter. It has not shipped, and I have asked for its drawing before accepting the proposal. No agreement to modify our fixture.

Keep the unsuitable adapter identified and segregated, so the alternative does not erase what actually arrived.

Does the proposal address the added adapter's tool position and service access, or only the mating face?

Not yet. Those are on the reviewer list with the load implications and fastening details. Thanks, Amy; we have a specific confirmed mismatch now, but the replacement proposal still needs assessment and agreed supply terms.

Then tooling stays unfitted. A plausible replacement offer is progress, not proof the purchased configuration is ready.