I know the appearance owner needs to define the viewing method and boundary samples. For my UR5e coated round housings, bench marks have prompted a softer-pad proposal before that is agreed. How should I connect the appearance comparison to holding and release, rather than run three unrelated demonstrations?
Use identified housings through a recorded handling sequence, with before and after judgements under that agreed method. Record the contact arrangement as well. Otherwise you can get a clean-looking sample from gentle bench placement and quietly apply the result to a different grip.
What will count as a release problem in the intended nest? I would ask the tooling and fixture owners to define the required final condition, since a housing leaving the fingers is not necessarily a correctly seated housing.
The fixture owner needs it seated without being dragged off the locating face. That was missing from the supplier's demonstration description. Quality has agreed the viewing method, but the boundary samples are still being judged.
That gives you something observable. Keep the seating judgement independent of the pad choice though; don't accept a changed nest position as the way to make the soft pads pass without reviewing what else that change affects.
Henry, do you mean no fixture changes at all? A revised contact arrangement could legitimately need one. It just becomes a different proposal, with its own comparison.
Yes, different proposal is what I meant. I worded it like the nest was untouchable. It isn't; I just don't want the before-and-after result pretending the pads were the only change.
The first identified comparison found a mark already present before handling, and a different new contact mark afterwards. We have not tested the softer pads yet. The plan now records seating after release as well as retention and appearance.
Will the comparison retain examples of both kinds of mark? The incoming one is useful evidence against blaming every visible change on the handling concept, while the new contact mark still needs its own acceptance judgement.