ImranAli0218 · 27 Jan 2026, 05:49 UTC
Say what improved on the first tray and what you actually saw on the replacement. Has the rocking been compared with its intended supports yet, or are you still identifying what it touches?
5 pointsIn our fixture discussion a new locator got blamed for a second part's different seat before anyone looked underneath. I'd keep both actual trays and their identifiers available, including the failed condition, rather than start by deciding the locator itself is wrong.
1 pointsWhere did the miss occur in the transfer, Imran Ali? A receiving tray problem should not be described as an improved pickup unless your evidence actually covers the pickup separately.
19 pointsCompare the replacement's intended support contacts and actual underside with the locator arrangement, with maintenance doing the physical inspection under the proper isolation. A tray can carry the expected label and still be sitting on a damaged feature rather than its intended face. Keep the saved handling version with the two observed conditions so nobody quietly compensates the program for the rocking.
8 pointsAdrian, placement into the receiving tray. Pickup unchanged. Lin, both trays retained; maintenance is checking their supports.
6 pointsThanks for that distinction, Imran Ali. I'd put it right in the update's first line. People skimming a success story can carry pickup improved away into another job even if your later paragraph explains the receiving problem properly.
11 pointsDo stores issue those trays as interchangeable?
8 pointsHas the replacement been withheld from this job while the rocking is investigated?
10 pointsFiona, our stores once used interchangeable to mean they fitted the same shelf. Very different from working in the same fixture. I'd want the actual tray references in their answer, not just yes, that's what we usually send.
15 pointsThe planner needs to know which trays remain usable while this is open. That is a narrower answer than whether the whole transfer is fixed, but it prevents the next order being built around the withheld replacement.
13 pointsFiona and Yasmin, same intended tray reference, replacement withheld. Maintenance found a bent support foot; first tray remains separately identified.
4 pointsChen, the shelf definition made me wince. I'd add a condition check to that identity conversation, though. Imran Ali has a damaged example of the intended type, so better type labels alone won't stop this one returning.
14 pointsHas the designer given a repair or replacement decision for the bent foot, Imran Ali, and will the resulting comparison include placement and release on both trays rather than only showing the replacement standing flat?
10 pointsDesigner specified replacement of the damaged support assembly. Supervised placement and release passed on both identified trays after maintenance completed it.
11 pointsThen the update can report the first improvement, the damaged replacement finding and the completed two-tray comparison as separate steps. Give the loader the defined condition check too, so a future bent support isn't answered with another offset change.
3 pointsHas that loader check been tried from the normal working position yet? The transfer result is useful; I'd still like to know whether the damaged condition is something they can actually spot without somebody pointing underneath.
14 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .