Pavel's distinction matters, but also establish whether the samples conform to the relevant part requirements. A contact conflict and a damaged bracket can look similar from above; the bench record should identify the actual samples and the condition in which they were checked.

Can the designer mark the intended freedoms and constraints on the existing drawing before you buy or modify anything?

And identify who owns that marked revision. Stores cannot maintain a locating scheme that exists only in this conversation.

The nest drawing names all of them contact pads but does not separate their functions. I will ask the designer for that map and quality for the sample condition records.

Before closure: some rock diagonally on the bench nest. I have not increased the clamp setting. The sample IDs are recorded, but conformity has not yet been checked.

Can you preserve the as-found contact evidence for those identified samples before anybody dresses a pad?

That should be possible through the tooling team's approved bench inspection, without buying the stronger clamp or treating a hand-held sample as a robot-loading trial.

Has the designer explained why those diagonal contacts are there? Rocking shows inconsistent seating, but not yet which contact is wrong.

Agreed, Lin. My datum example was a reason to inspect the scheme, not a diagnosis of Ella's nest; the pads could also be made or assembled wrong.

Quality checked the identified brackets against the relevant drawing requirements and found no discrepancy in that sample group. The designer's map shows two contacts both locating the same direction against different bracket features.

That makes a competing-contact explanation plausible, but ask for the actual feature variation and contact locations in the review. Two contacts sharing a direction are not automatically incompatible; their intended geometry and the permitted part variation determine whether they fight each other.

Exactly. Don't swap an unsupported clamp diagnosis for an unsupported pad diagnosis.

The dimensional overlay shows the auxiliary contact can engage before the intended locating face across our sample variation. Designer proposes relieving that contact, with its support function reconsidered rather than simply deleting it.

Does the proposal retain a defined way to resist the intended loads after that contact changes?

And show the clamp acting into the intended support, not pulling the bracket into the old contradictory position. The force discussion can come after that.

Has the revised nest actually been checked, or is the overlay the latest evidence?

Overlay only. The stronger-clamp order is cancelled, and the designer is completing the revised support and restraint assessment before a bench comparison. No revised nest approved yet.