I'm not ready to buy softer pads for our UR5e sleeve transfer just because the finished sleeves have marks. Our bench exercise involves the source nest, fingers and receiving nest, and we only examined the sleeves at the end. I need an appearance method and a way to see where the unwanted contact happens, while still checking that the tool holds and releases properly.
Get quality's appearance method and physical examples agreed first, then keep identified sleeves checked before and after the relevant handling stages. The supplier's pad suggestion might help, but your current after-only observation doesn't tell you which contact made the marks.
That is the gap in our first exercise. The actual sleeves are retained, but nobody checked their incoming surfaces. I can use them to discuss the appearance limit, not reconstruct when each mark appeared.
Keep incoming condition separate from the stage observations. Otherwise a mark already there can get assigned to whichever contact someone distrusts most.
We once spent ages arguing about a handling mark that some parts already had when they came out of their packaging. Different deliveries, same supplier. It didn't make the mark acceptable, just meant changing our fingers would have been an expensive way of doing nothing about that one.
Nadia Brown, there are dull arcs and a sharper mark near one end, so we're separating those observations. Amara, thickness changes too. Quality has now agreed the appearance method; the fresh comparison starts with inspected, identified sleeves and keeps the existing arrangement as its baseline.
Include the actual support and movement at both nests in that baseline. The thicker candidate needs its own complete assessment if pursued, not just the old route with a different material name on the fingers.
Keep the physical finish judgement tied to the location on each sleeve. A brighter image can make an unchanged surface look more dramatic. The stage comparison needs consistent viewing as well as reliable item identity.
Will quality define how the sleeve is supported while being viewed, Nadia Archer? Otherwise lifting it out for inspection could add another uncontrolled contact between the stages you are trying to compare.
Where does the first newly observed mark appear in that baseline, Nadia Archer? I'd be interested whether the sharper end mark and the dull arcs even begin at the same stage.
Martin, yes, the inspection support is defined. Daniel, the fresh baseline sleeves have no rejected mark after the grip and transfer, but the sharper end mark appears after seating in the receiver. The receiving lip is the corresponding contact under review; the old after-only arcs still have no assigned history.
Have tooling compare that lip with the intended nest drawing and actual sleeve variation before changing it. The observation gives them a specific contact to investigate, not a finished replacement design.
Tooling found the receiver lip differed from its intended profile and corrected the nest. Amy, correct seating is visible from the operator side in the corrected arrangement. We are repeating the agreed sequence with the original pads, including holding, placement and release.
Has that repeat finished, Nadia Archer? I'd like to hear the appearance result as well as whether the sleeve now seats properly; correcting the lip should not quietly become the result of a test nobody has done.
The repeat is complete. Identified incoming sleeves passed the appearance check after the full sequence, with secure holding and consistent release in the agreed trial. The sharp receiver-end mark did not recur. Original pads stayed fitted; the corrected nest is the change we assessed.
Dropping it for this job. The existing pads with the corrected receiver met the agreed comparison, and no separate requirement now calls for the thicker candidate. Thanks Rosa and Daniel; checking the stages saved us from buying around the wrong contact.
Glad you found the offending bit. Ours was a packaging question in the end; yours wasn't, but looking before the first grip was still worth the bother.