We took one packed shipping carton to the supplier and their vacuum demo looked fine. I have since found that our second approved carton source uses uncoated board, with the same artwork and size. The quote covers both. I want that difference tested before we accept the tool.
Send identified packed samples from both approved constructions, including ordinary seam and tape positions. A matching outer size and printed design do not establish that the same contact arrangement works on both.
Packaging has supplied both construction references. The uncoated carton also puts the tape overlap farther into the proposed contact area. Both are normal accepted packaging here.
Include the full transfer and release in the trial request, with the proposed response to an unsuccessful pickup; the supplier's first lift only covered one part of the intended task.
The supplier has both sets now, with our ordinary presentation range and receiving position. They've agreed to compare the original layout before offering a revised one.
Have you kept the supplier construction references with the samples? That will let the report distinguish a new carton source from a new batch of the same carton.
Yes. Their first comparison found the original contact layout unreliable across the uncoated samples near the overlap. They have withdrawn its both-carton claim and are proposing another layout.
Sofia, that may still be a bench assessment; Zara needs the intended application response shown separately if the station logic isn't part of this demonstration yet.
One revised arrangement for both, Isabel. Sofia and Aaron, this was the tooling bench only. The supplier is adding the unsuccessful-pickup response to the station proposal; neither that response nor the revised tool has passed the full comparison yet.
Keep the coated samples in the repeat as well. The new layout has to retain the first useful result while handling the uncoated construction, not merely swap which carton gets the successful demo.