Keep your trial's sample and tray conditions attached. The comparison must cover the complete delivered tool, not only whether the adapter's screw holes fit the wrist. Different projection can change access even when it bolts on.

Does the order identify the demonstrated adapter, Owen, or only describe a tooling package? I would separate the technical difference from what the seller actually committed to supply, so one answer cannot quietly replace the other.

The final agreed list identifies the demonstrated adapter reference. That is why the repeated equivalent reply annoys me. It offers neither the confirmed item nor evidence for accepting a different one.

Then ask whether the confirmed one is available as well, no point spending another month proving a substitution you never needed.

Nina's distinction is useful for the trainer too. A tested configuration and a supplied configuration need to be named separately until the review joins them; otherwise the demonstration becomes instructions for hardware nobody actually received.

Exactly, Isabel. Stores also needs the final accepted reference, not a note saying use the equivalent one. That phrase has a remarkably short useful life when another person orders a spare.

Has the engineer answered about the thickness yet, Owen?

Yes. Their comparison confirms the thicker adapter moves the tool body toward the tray rim. It has not established a collision or suitability. They also say the original adapter can be supplied, with availability confirmation pending.

Can your integrator overlay that measured assembly on the retained tray geometry? That's a more useful next step than a video of another easy transfer.

The integrator has done the overlay. At the agreed grip position, the delivered tool body overlaps the rim during entry to the corner pocket. Moving the grip would change the trial conditions and needs another tooling assessment.

Are you considering that change, or asking them to supply what was agreed?

A new assessment might be an option, but its time and cost belong in a proposal, not automatically in Owen's workshop budget because a different adapter arrived.

I am requesting the confirmed adapter, Beth. Nina, agreed: we are not funding a changed grip to rescue this substitution. The dimensional finding is enough to reject the supplied arrangement for our agreed task.

Keep that decision beside the corner-pocket evidence. It explains why the arm being delivered did not complete the tooling supply, without making a broader claim about what that adapter could do elsewhere.

Have they actually confirmed stock of the original now?

They confirmed an identified original adapter in stock and sent a separate dispatch proposal. We accepted that supply route. There is no collection record yet, so it has not become a delivery date on our schedule.

Carrier collection is now recorded against that replacement parcel. Tooling remains uninstalled pending receipt and the installer checking the complete kit. At least we have stopped debating an unsuitable substitution as though it were our only choice.