UR5e vacuum contact over the tape overlap on our actual cartons

Its position varies. The retained cartons include the usual variation in tape, printing and board finish. We have not selected a tidy subset or agreed extra preparation.

Show the proposed contacts on those tops first. Cheap way to find whether avoiding the overlap is a real option or just a nice drawing on the easiest carton.

Ask for the complete handling assessment with the representative packed samples, not a seal demonstration alone. The proposed movement, release and response to an unsuccessful pickup belong in it, with the supplier's assumptions about packaging made explicit.

Nora, dispatch requires the label facing the aisle. Chloe, the contact map shows the overlap under one proposed contact on several ordinary cartons. Rotating those boxes would conflict with that requirement.

So has the supplier proposed different tooling, or quietly added a person to turn every box back again?

Different contact arrangement proposed, with its limits still to be assessed. I have kept manual turning out of the assumed workflow rather than let it appear as an unpriced demo trick.

Don't ban it from the comparison entirely if they offer it honestly. Just count the handling and ask dispatch whether it makes any sense.

I agree with Chloe. A workflow alternative can be legitimate, but it needs its own labour, access and handling review; it cannot be used to claim the unchanged process has passed.

Fair distinction. I've asked for a separate costed alternative if they want to propose turning, while the revised tool assessment stays tied to our current label orientation.

Did the revised contacts cope with the ordinary tape variation, or are you still waiting for that demonstration?

The supervised comparison completed with the revised arrangement. It handled the retained ordinary finishes in the defined sequence, but one accepted carton construction did not meet the agreed pickup check consistently. That construction remains outside the demonstrated scope.

How would your packer tell that construction apart before it reached the station?

The packaging reference identifies it, but mixed returns lose that separation. Our packer says sorting them would add work, and I have not treated restricted use as a free fix.

Then put mixed returns in the next cost comparison. They won't politely disappear because the new tool passed the fresh deliveries.

We are comparing that sorting cost with retaining the current manual transfer for all cartons. No tooling order yet. The successful samples are useful evidence, just not the whole workload.

Thanks for keeping the awkward construction in the update; is the supplier offering another contact approach, or leaving you with that restricted scope?