HanaCarter0970 · 29 Sept 2025, 09:52 UTC
Describe both runs and identify the trays. Was the replacement actually the same tray design, or just supplied under the same stock description?
9 pointsSame stock description. The replacement has a folded lip underneath which the old tray does not. I only noticed it when we took underside photographs.
14 pointsCompare where that lip sits relative to the locator before buying anything. Also check the intended tray supports. A photograph from above can make two quite different seats look equally convincing.
7 pointsThe lip touches the locator before the tray reaches its intended rear support. Toolmaker is checking the two tray drawings. I have left the replacement tray out of the claimed improvement.
19 pointsMake the intended contacts explicit in the locator drawing, because locating a tray against whichever folded edge arrives first is going to be a pain to maintain
10 pointsCan the toolmaker establish whether the lip difference is an approved revision or variation within one design? The remedy could differ. Two samples alone will not describe the supply range.
21 pointsDo not throw away the good result either. I mean report the conditions it worked under, not claim that the whole idea failed because another tray found a weakness.
-9 pointsKeep the failed tray in the next trial. It's the useful awkward one now, not something to hide so the locator looks decent
12 pointsWe had a locator which was fine until stores put labels over its contact face, so I now ask what people can add to a tray between issue and use (not just what the tray drawing says).
1 pointsChen, were those labels on the tray itself or on a removable holder? Trying to picture which bit your setup check needed to catch
12 pointsKeep the results grouped by tray and setup. An overall success total can hide the fact that all the misses started with one change, which is the most useful part of your story.
9 pointsInclude the number of opportunities in each group too. Or rather, do not compare one miss after a change with a longer run before it as though the trial lengths were equal.
8 pointsKieran, the lip is an approved newer tray revision. Luis and LiamAli, the update separates the run lengths and misses by tray revision. Toolmaker is reviewing relief in the locator, with the intended supports unchanged.
9 pointsGive the setter a way to recognise those tray revisions as well. The supplier's common stock description was not enough for you, so it won't become magically informative at the next changeover.
11 pointsThe locator relief is proposed, not made yet. We have also added visible tray identification to the setup review. Thanks, Rebecca, the underside comparison found a concrete problem without another pickup edit.
1 pointsCaleb, labels were directly on the tray side where it met the stop; we agreed a different label area and made that contact visible in the setup check, no removable holder involved.
22 pointsPlease post the replacement-tray trial when the reviewed change is ready. Your current update can simply say improved with the original tray, incompatible contact found on the newer one.
7 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .