During finger contact, from what I can see. It looks upright before that. I haven't got a close view that proves which contact starts it, so I'm not calling it a finger fault yet.

I'd save the current program and whatever edit record exists before anyone cleans that mess up. Then have maintenance compare the fitted pair, backing pieces and mounting condition with the specified assembly. The tray location still needs checking, but the first lean gives them a useful place to look without buying anything.

Our housing once met a proud pad edge first. Looked like a point error until we inspected the pair.

Oscar's pad is his finding. Victor still needs his fitted contacts checked, not a borrowed diagnosis

Agreed. I meant inspect both contacts, not replace a pad because mine was wrong.

Program and edits preserved. Maintenance found different pad references on the two fingers. One matches our assembly drawing; the other is a spare from the neighbouring housing job. They haven't yet decided whether that's the whole explanation.

Do their contact heights differ when mounted, or only their references?

That's worth answering, Ada. A wrong reference is enough to investigate supply, but I wouldn't tell the programmer to undo every point change just because a label differs. They need the measured assembly and a reviewed return check together.

The wrong pad stands proud at the first-contact edge when mounted. Maintenance compared it with the drawing and the correct spare. They also checked the backing piece; that one is correct.

How did that spare reach the drawer for this job? I'd fix that route too

Ours was a mixed tray of spares after a bench clear-out. No mystery, just two similar parts nobody wanted to throw away.

Our stores bin carries only the housing family name, not the pad reference. Both jobs share that family name. The fitter picked from the labelled bin, so this isn't explained by telling them to read the same label harder.

Exactly. Give stores the actual approved pair and separate the other job's stock. I'm more interested in that than an instruction saying be careful, because the next fitter will face the same two plausible pieces otherwise.

Correct pad fitted through maintenance and the mixed stock separated. Programmer has reviewed the accumulated compensations with the measured tool condition. Initial supervised checks show square contact and lift again; wider tray coverage is next.

Will that coverage include a tray exchange, not only repeated pickups from the same tray?

And retain the removed pad reference in the repair note. Don't just photograph the nice new pair

Victor, did the first checks use the reviewed program version? Asking because your original complaint was a mechanical problem buried under edits, and a good pad with an unexplained offset pile would leave that half unanswered.

Yes, Harish. The reviewed version is identified in the repair record. The agreed checks now cover the working tray positions and the replacement tray after exchange, with no initial lean recurring. Maintenance and our cell lead completed the return-to-use check. Thanks Ada for insisting on the mounted height comparison.

That's a repair people can trace next time: wrong pad, measured contact difference, correct pair and checked job. Much more useful than another saved pickup point.