They can mark the accessible edge. Designer is reviewing orientation because the current mounting holes accept both ways round.

Include the revision in that visible identity, with a clear recipe relationship; a family name alone leaves two similar versions politely agreeing with the screen

Show the actual fitted view in the lesson. An underside photo is useful for stores, less useful to someone checking a nest already assembled.

We handed over an insert using a beautiful photograph taken before installation, then watched the cover operator crouch around looking for a mark hidden by the base; make the fitted check something they can actually see.

New drawing puts the family and revision on the exposed edge. It also adds an orientation feature; we still need the designer's wrong-way and wrong-family checks.

What confirms seating independently of identity?

A specified visible seating check is in the proposal. The author had assumed the identity check covered it, so we have separated those steps.

Good distinction. Correct lettering can still sit on an insert that hasn't reached its locators

Who handles a mismatch when the usual setter is away? That belongs beside the checks, not in somebody's memory.

Shift lead and deputy own the response. Tooling's bench checks reject the reversed installation and identify the wrong-family insert; correct insert seats as specified.

Has the covering loader tried those examples without the designer introducing each one by name?

Yes. They found the wrong family and reversed attempt, then identified the correct seated insert. Thanks, Imran, we also replaced the hidden-mark photograph.

Recipe comparison now shows the required family and revision. The installed changeover trial remains to be done, so the revised lesson is still a draft rather than permission to run.

Does the draft retain an explicit mismatch response?