Receiving can select from the incoming lots. The demo avoids the taped seam; our supplied boxes do not always present that seam in the same place relative to the pickup

We once rearranged packs before a demonstration and forgot that nobody upstream would do that in production. Is your proposal relying on somebody turning each box?

Has the supplier specified how acquisition is confirmed before transfer, and how a loss or doubtful hold is handled in the assessed application?

Hana, no manual turning is included in the estimate. Robin, the quote names a vacuum switch but does not describe the decision or response. I have asked for that explanation with the trial scope

Then don't let seam avoidance appear as free preparation in the next demo. They can propose controlled presentation, but it needs an actual method and someone to price it.

Omar, yes. I wouldn't insist random orientation is mandatory if packing can control it cheaply. Lucy just needs to compare the real alternatives, not a tidied sample disguised as incoming stock.

Packing says it cannot promise the current seam orientation. It is willing to review a presentation change, not adopt one yet. Both the as-received condition and that possible change are in the supplier discussion

Record preparation time if that alternative is tested. Also any extra consumables or checks needed to keep the presentation consistent between orders.

Will the trial boxes contain the intended product at representative mass, rather than empty packaging with the right outside surface?

Yes, representative packed contents are in the agreed sample request. Supplier has not assessed the concept yet. Thanks Robin; our first sample list named board types but not the packed condition

I'd keep the box condition after release in that agreement too. Getting it across the gap isn't enough if the packing station receives a dented top or loosened closure.

Does the receiver need a particular orientation? Our extra turning job merely moved downstream when we solved the pickup end.

The next station needs the label facing the operator. That requirement is now on the trial sheet. No promise yet that the proposed tool preserves it through transfer

Hana's point links the two ends neatly. Do not time the robot portion and leave that final orientation correction outside the comparison.

Who will agree the acceptable acquisition, retained-hold and release evidence with the tooling supplier before this becomes an acceptance trial?

Our integrator and packaging owner are doing that. Current work is a feasibility comparison, not acceptance. Supplier has proposed two contact arrangements; neither has been evaluated on our full sample selection

That is worth keeping explicit. Two proposed arrangements means two things to investigate, not twice as much evidence that the vacuum concept works.

Lucy, will you return with which stock conditions caused trouble, not just which arrangement won? That would be useful when the next board delivery looks different.