SaraChen1157 · 21 Jun 2026, 07:25 UTC
Put the replacement-tray miss in the main result, not an exception at the bottom. You observed improvement on some supervised runs. That doesn't establish the locator works across the trays you'll actually use.
14 pointsDo you know whether the replacement seated differently, Sara? Not asking you to explain the miss yet. Just whether anybody recorded what the tray was doing when it happened.
8 pointsHenry, useful question, though even a seating difference would still need connecting to the missed pickup. I've seen reports leap from new observation to new cause almost in the same sentence.
21 pointsNo seating observation from the miss, Henry. I watched the sleeve. Daniel, I've separated observed pickup behaviour from the possible explanation in the draft.
7 pointsThen leave seating unknown. You can plan to observe it in a reviewed comparison without writing that the tray moved. Did the original tray return after the replacement?
8 pointsIt didn't. That's another missing comparison, not evidence against the replacement tray. Thanks for asking it that way; my first draft sounded much more certain.
15 pointsThat gives you a sensible next study: identified trays and seating observations, with comparable pickup conditions. Keep counts if you're going to claim a rate change; your current qualitative wording doesn't pretend you have them.
20 pointsAnd keep the trial size in plain sight. A few runs are still worth reporting. They just don't owe anyone a reliability figure.
14 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.