JamieArcher0382 · 31 Aug 2025, 07:14 UTC
Send a view list tied to the agreed task: equipment identities, adapter reference, sample pickup and release into the receiving tray. Ask them to explain how the identity close-ups connect to the system doing the handling.
18 pointsThey have offered close-up photographs of the adapter and labels. No answer on a clearer release view yet.
19 pointsThe photos can help identify components. They still need to be linked to the demonstrated assembly, and the missing release view remains a separate request.
6 pointsI've sent that distinction. They ask which samples we want shown; our agreement names both the round and rectangular pieces.
15 pointsName both again, annoyingly. Include the receiving tray in frame. A close view of fingers closing followed by a neat tray photo leaves you guessing about everything between them.
1 pointsDoes your agreed check include any inspection of the samples after handling? If so, make that visible and linked to the pieces in the run, rather than adding a new acceptance condition later.
16 pointsYes, a surface check on the handled pieces is included. I have requested that with their identities retained through the recording.
10 pointsKeep the sample quantities from the agreement too. One round piece may not represent the whole requested run.
19 pointsWould a marked still from their existing video help explain the blocked views? They may be reading more video as longer, rather than showing the missing part of the task.
5 pointsI've marked the cover and the edge of frame where release vanishes. They agreed to reposition the camera and show the complete agreed sample set.
5 pointsNew recording arrived. Labels can be linked to the arm and controller now. Round samples remain visible, but the rectangular pieces go behind the receiving fixture during release.
17 pointsThat is progress, but they still haven't shown the awkward bit. Ask for the rectangular-piece view specifically. No reason to make them repeat the identity section if its connection to the assembly is already clear.
4 pointsAdapter is also clearer: A3, as agreed. I've asked for the rectangular transfer and its surface check to be shown without that obstruction.
9 pointsCan the camera move enough without losing the source tray? I would ask for a view that keeps both ends visible, with a separate detail view if the surface check needs it.
1 pointsWhich of the agreed checks have you accepted from this recording? A short list would make the remaining request easier to follow.
18 pointsAaron, equipment and adapter identities are clear; round-piece handling and the linked surface check are visible. Rectangular release and surface check remain open. Pavel, they propose a wider view plus a close surface view afterward.
18 pointsWider is fine if you can still see the rectangular pieces. We once got the whole workshop beautifully framed and the actual part reduced to a moving speck. Ask for visibility, not a particular camera distance.
15 pointsYou can send that remaining-check list back as the reply. It is much harder to misunderstand than another request for a better video, and it acknowledges what the replacement actually fixed.
20 pointsLatest clip keeps the rectangular pieces visible through release. Surface view follows with the pieces identifiable. Our tooling reviewer has it now; I haven't called the pre-shipment check accepted myself.
16 pointsHas the reviewer confirmed whether the visible result meets the agreed check, or asked for anything else? Clear footage gives them a basis for that decision, not a decision by itself.
18 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .