We once sent the supplier only the worst marked pieces and then wondered why they could not tell what changed. Do you have identified before-contact condition for any of these samples?

Only for some. Quality will own appearance, and I can retain those identified samples separately from the mixed pile. The proposed material is still described only as softer.

Ask for the pad material and geometry; softness alone does not identify a repeatable candidate.

Will quality judge the parts without knowing which pad produced each result? A simple coded comparison can reduce preference for the proposed solution, while the trial record still preserves full traceability.

Useful, provided the coding doesn't hide the before state or make paired samples impossible to find afterwards.

Quality agreed a coded before-and-after comparison with retained examples. The supplier has specified the pad candidate and the bench scope includes the tray. The disputed fine line still divides the inspectors.

Then that line remains undecided. Do not average the votes into an acceptance requirement.

Can the appearance owner resolve that boundary using the intended product requirement, or does it need a customer decision? The comparison should not quietly invent a tolerance because the trial is waiting.

It needs the product owner's decision. Quality can classify the obvious scuffs, but has held the fine-line examples out of the decided reference set.

You can still retain observations from those pieces; just don't score them as cosmetic passes or failures yet.

What did the bench handling comparison actually show, separate from the fine-line argument?

On the recorded samples, both candidates held and released into the tray under the agreed bench conditions. The current pad produced an obvious rejected scuff on one sample; the proposed pad did not. Fine-line appearance remains undecided.

That supports a narrower finding about the scuff, not final pad acceptance across the job.

Keep the exact contact arrangement and sample range with that result. The eventual product decision can settle the fine-line classification, but it cannot expand the mechanical trial to conditions that were not tested.

Recorded. I have enough to prefer the candidate for further assessment, not to place the full tooling order. The product owner has the fine-line examples but has not answered.

Does the supplier know that distinction? A request to continue assessment can sound like pad approval if purchasing only forwards the favourable scuff result.

Yes. The note names the unresolved appearance boundary and remaining application assessment beside the scuff result. No order or acceptance sent.