OmarBrown0926 · 23 Nov 2025, 10:19 UTC
That wording is already fairly clear. Can you compare how those two identified trays contact the locator and their supports? Same outside shape can hide the difference that matters underneath.
6 pointsComparison requested. Replacement looks higher at one corner, but I have not measured it or called that the cause
5 pointsHigher relative to what? I'd want the support contact checked before measuring pocket positions from a tray that might not be sitting down properly.
24 pointsTooling found the replacement's underside contacts a locating feature before reaching the support. First tray clears it. Both actual trays were compared, not only their drawings
16 pointsUseful finding. Who decides whether the locator should accommodate both revisions or stores should supply only one? That is a tooling and production choice, not another pickup-point correction.
7 pointsAnd can stores tell them apart reliably? A one-revision decision is not much use if every replacement arrives under the same description.
21 pointsThey have different moulded identifiers. Tooling and production are considering both routes, with stores separating the revisions meanwhile. Thanks Owen, the update now says what actually prevented seating
2 pointsKeep the original limited improvement in it too. Finding why the replacement sat badly does not erase the useful first-tray result or complete the revised-locator trial you have not run yet.
23 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .