Spacer is tilted in its source fixture before contact. Not obvious from the normal camera view. The closer view shows it before the fingers arrive.

Then have maintenance compare the source fixture's intended supports and locators with the actual spacer, as well as inspecting the contact pair. We've had people argue about the gripper while it was faithfully picking up a part presented badly to it. That isn't a diagnosis of yours, just a reason to look earlier.

Earlier tilt is evidence. Gripper innocence is still a hypothesis (and not necessary to find the source problem).

Stephanie's right. One finding may explain the start of the lean without accounting for later contact damage. Keep both inspections in scope.

Can the loader tell whether the spacer has reached its intended seat? If the close camera is the only place that shows the tilt, the ordinary loading check may need attention too.

Hana, I would ask the fixture owner what observable condition the loader should verify, rather than invent a visual test from the video. That can sit beside the mechanical investigation without implying the operator caused the problem.

Are all the source pockets affected, Jonas, or one location? That might help maintenance choose a cheap physical comparison.

One location. Same identified spacer sits squarely in another pocket. Maintenance found the affected support insert is loose at one end; its specified fastener is present but no longer retaining it properly.

Does that movement reproduce the observed tilt when maintenance checks the assembly under its procedure? I would keep the physical relationship, not only a note that a fastener was loose.

And inspect the fixing condition before just tightening it. Wrong engagement, damaged threads and an omitted retention provision are different repair questions; I'm not picking one from the word loose.

Movement corresponds to the tilted seat. Toolmaker found damaged insert threads. Maintenance is replacing the approved insert and checking the complete fixing arrangement, not treating a quick tighten as the repair.

Who is recording the reviewed software combination for the return check? Those accumulated offsets were made around a moving support, so the mechanical repair and controls decision need to reach the next shift together.

Maintenance lead and programmer own it jointly. Replacement fitted and static seating is square in the checked pockets. Finger inspection found no out-of-limit condition. Reviewed transfer checks not complete.

Has tooling defined that loader check now? The repaired seat is useful, but the person loading should not need your special camera view to recognise the intended condition.

Keep it within the agreed access and procedure. A visible seating reference can be useful without asking an operator to reach into the fixture or diagnose a fastening fault.

Tooling has a proposed visible seating reference for the normal loading position. Operations will assess it during the return checks. That instruction is still provisional, and the station remains held.

Thanks for the specific mechanical result. Will you report whether the reviewed transfer and loader check both work, rather than closing the whole thing from the static seating improvement?