I cannot justify another FR5 pickup edit with one-sided puck contact

It appears seated before closure, then turns toward the finger with the narrow contact mark.

Is the narrow mark on the finger face, or on the puck? A photograph of both would help your maintainer.

Sara, on the puck; Lucy, all versions are retained, including the original job.

Has the same identified puck been compared with earlier accepted stock, or could the one-sided mark follow a change in the part itself?

Sara, the two surfaces are worth showing together. A contact mark can narrow the inspection, but I would not choose a replacement face from the mark alone.

Mina, retained and current pucks show the same tendency. Maintenance has the identified examples for comparison.

Do the fitted contact faces have readable references?

Not from the installed viewing side. Maintenance will identify them during the condition check.

Then wrong finger is still a guess.

We chased a similar-looking grip by sorting every part into neat groups, and the eventual inspection found the same contact had worn across all of them; comparing stock was useful, but it took someone examining the tool to stop us inventing a separate explanation for each group.

Condition check found matching contact references, with uneven wear on one face. Fixture contacts match their drawing.

Which part of that face is worn?

The lower curved contact is worn flatter than its drawing profile and the opposite face.

Give the tool service person that comparison with the puck range and accumulated edits. Restoring the specified contact needs a return check of the whole transfer; it may change which of those corrections still belongs in the job.

Service has quoted restoration to the specified profile. Programmer will review the saved corrections against the restored tool.

And the production plan reflects the service time?

Yes, work has been reassigned while the tool is serviced. No repaired-tool result yet.