Our arm arrived, but the pads don't match the trial for placing plastic samples in trays. Seller calls the kit equivalent without showing these pads on our pieces. Twelve days waiting and tooling uninstalled. I'd like a clear comparison rather than decide from how the pads look
Start with identified pad drawings and material details for the trial and delivered sets, then ask how the changed assembly has been assessed for your sample handling rather than accept the label equivalent alone
The delivered pads have a different contact profile. Material isn't identified on the bag, so I can't say whether that changed too. I've only compared appearance so far
I would keep the complete assembly in the application comparison as well. Pads can change where the sample sits between the fingers, so even a material answer won't establish holding, presentation and release in your trays.
Luis, agreed; the pads need to be identified as parts, then assessed as fitted contacts in the intended transfer, not approved as loose samples on someone's desk
Exactly. Ask for availability and responsibility for any replacement supply separately from technical equivalence. Otherwise an apparently simple choice can depend on a part they cannot currently supply.
Seller has identified the delivered material and sent a drawing with the bag number. It still hasn't linked the trial pads to a revision or demonstrated the supplied set
Useful identification for the supplied side, but the trial reference remains missing; don't let the new drawing be treated as the comparison you asked for
That physical comparison is pending. I'm keeping the drawing and bag reference together so the toolmaker can check the actual supplied pair, not another example
That is the status I would give the planner, Robin, with both the trial-pad availability and substitute assessment unresolved. The robot arriving does not make either tooling option ready for use.