I've asked for that link with the sample identities and complete pickup, placement and release. Their label photograph is separate from the motion clip.

Make the accepted pad drawing the reference, not just a label saying sample tooling. The seller can show markings close up and then the assembled tool, keeping its connection to the demonstrated package clear. A collection of separate correct-looking photographs does not establish that assembly.

And retain the demonstration requirement as open; they've supplied pieces of evidence, not the agreed observation.

Ask them to explain ordinary preparation and waits as they demonstrate. Our own support clip showed a screen saying waiting without the condition the job wanted. A moving sequence can leave a similar hole for the operator who later has to run it, even when the hardware identity is finally clear.

Warren, useful, but preparation must be shown too. Narration can omit a hand that steadies the sample.

Hazel's point matters: ask for a view of the supplied samples and preparation, not another zoom which proves the pad marking while hiding everything needed to present a part.

The new clip links our package and pad references. It shows an operator spacing samples individually before pickup, though our agreed task uses the samples as supplied in their source tray.

Then identity is established and presentation scope differs. Keep both findings. Was that preparation allowed by the agreed demonstration, or is it a changed process proposal?

Sofia's scope question comes before condemning the tool. The new clip may demonstrate a useful prepared task without demonstrating the task Oliver agreed to buy.

The agreement explicitly uses our supplied source tray. Seller acknowledges the individual spacing was extra preparation and proposes a tray-handling repeat. No claim that the pads have failed yet.

That gives the repeat a clear purpose. Preserve the source tray view through pickup, not only an empty tray at the beginning and a sample in the fingers afterward. Ordinary preparation and any assistance should remain visible so the next result is understandable without a sales call translating it.

Has the source-tray repeat arrived, Oliver?

Yes. It shows the confirmed fingers cannot reach the last source position without meeting the tray wall. The demonstrator stopped the attempt; the agreed complete tray task is not demonstrated.

That's an observed access failure now, not merely missing footage.

And not evidence that every sample position fails, but the whole agreed tray matters; I'd ask for a defined proposal rather than accept another attractive subset with the awkward pocket left empty.

Seller proposes a different source tray with more spacing. It would require us to transfer samples from our existing trays first. We are comparing that added work before accepting any changed scope.

Does your current manual process need that extra transfer too?

And any changed tray and handling arrangement needs its own complete demonstration and assessment, even if Oliver accepts the labour. A commercial scope decision isn't a tooling result.

No extra source transfer in our manual method. We declined the revised tray proposal after costing that preparation. Purchasing is discussing the remaining order terms; we have not accepted the original demonstration or authorised dispatch from it.