I'd avoid agreeing to a repeat demo until its scope is clear; a successful pickup alone may tell you little about the fixture placement.

Amy, asking for the demonstration scope is sensible, but Owen can request the technical comparison now. The seller should identify what changed and why it supposedly preserves the agreed task before everyone negotiates camera angles.

The contact outline and backing differ. I've photos of both arrangements and the sample-trial record. My request already asks why they changed. Their answer only says the replacement is equivalent, so there is no technical comparison to assess yet.

Who would support that replacement afterwards? Ask for its revision and spare reference with the comparison. A satisfactory trial would still leave you needing to identify the pads when they wear.

Support owns the spare identity. Don't let a trial photo become your parts catalogue.

For students I keep the reference piece and the image together because a picture can hide which surface is being handled. Here I would identify the actual samples and receiving fixture in the proposed trial. Then the video has something specific to establish.

Yes, Grace, I didn't mean hold up the comparison request; I meant don't accept an unspecified demonstration as the answer to it.

Owen, do your photos establish pad dimensions, or only visible shape? I would separate measured differences from those still needing the seller's drawing.

Visible shape only for the trial pads. I can identify the difference but cannot give a reliable thickness comparison from the old picture. Thanks, Leah; I'll label that as unknown instead of adding an estimated dimension.

That leaves a workable request: identify both assemblies, explain the change, and propose task-specific evidence for the replacement. Keep who provides that evidence explicit so the pause doesn't quietly become a requirement for your workshop to validate an undocumented substitution.

Who is answering, technical staff or the sales contact?

Sales so far. I've asked for a technical person to address the pad change and copied the trial conditions into the request. That message has gone out; nobody has accepted the proposed evidence list yet.

Keep the support question in that list too. Grace's point covers proving the present task; somebody also needs to say which replacement parts and instructions belong to the arrangement being offered.

Would a comparison table make it easier to see which questions they leave unanswered? Not a score for the robot. Just the approved arrangement, delivered arrangement and evidence still missing for each difference.

Useful provided unknown stays unknown; I'd leave a blank technical answer rather than convert another assurance into a tick.

And don't read silence as proof the pads cannot work; it is proof you still lack the basis for accepting their proposed change.

I've attached the table. Sales says it has been forwarded, with no technical name or appointment. I'm not rejecting the possibility of a usable replacement, but the tooling hold remains because its suitability is unanswered.

That distinction also matters to whoever manages installation. They need an outstanding acceptance question and an owner, not an instruction to fit the delivered pads and see whether the original trial can be reproduced.

Forwarded isn't assigned. Ask who has the next answer and when to chase it.