At the bench review I put the two housing inserts into their carrier without the labels facing me. Both fitted, and both could be fitted backwards. The samples even looked reasonably settled from above.
The proposed recipe check asks the operator to confirm the name printed on the storage box. I can follow that instruction correctly and still have the wrong insert in the carrier. Before this is automated, what should tooling and controls establish together? I would prefer a changeover that does not depend on everyone remembering the afternoon we nearly mixed these up.
Ask tooling how orientation and family can be physically distinguished, and controls how the installed identity is matched to the recipe. The storage box can help issue the part; it cannot confirm installation.
Tooling says a mounting change could prevent reversal, but has not said it would distinguish the families. I have kept those as separate questions. The current carrier would accept either insert with that proposed change.
Then the family check remains necessary. Include removal after a valid match, so a previous confirmation does not survive an insert exchange unnoticed.
Could you walk through a wrong-family example with the operator before choosing hardware? I would include a correct storage box beside the wrong fitted insert, because that is the particular confidence trap your current instruction creates.
We did that with our usual setter. They correctly read the box and then stopped because they couldn't tell whether the installed insert belonged to it. Useful hesitation. The instruction currently asks them to confirm more than they can see.
Ella's example is useful. Also ask who receives the problem when the match cannot be established. An operator needs an agreed route, not just a screen that refuses to continue.
The draft now separates those cases and identifies the shift lead as the contact. Controls and tooling are still defining the installed-identity arrangement; no reader has been bought.
Who will review replacement inserts against the recipe mapping later? A family name can stay the same while a tooling revision changes the actual contacts.
Tooling coordinator with controls. Stores will issue against the approved assembly reference. The location of the proposed identity mark is still being reviewed because it must remain with the insert during normal maintenance.
Does the shift lead have a defined response for the unreadable case yet? Naming them is useful, but they should not inherit an instruction to make the identification work by persuasion.