I found a refurbished UR5e priced well below the other options for our polymer-puck transfer. Listing says inspected, with no scope or results. Before paying to collect it, I want the offered equipment identified and a proper explanation of what was actually checked.
Request the inspection report, repair work and known limitations tied to the arm and included equipment. Ask whether a qualified independent inspector can assess that actual package before collection. An unloaded run may be useful, but it will not establish your puck-handling application
Report arrived: visual inspection and unloaded motion, with the arm and controller identified. Pendant described as included, no identity. Seller says a workshop pendant was used for the check.
Ask them to identify the included pendant and say whether it has been assessed with that controller, before the attractive package price assumes a tested combination
And budget the actual application work separately. Tooling, fixture, integration and acceptance don't vanish because the arm is second-hand. A decent limited inspection can still leave your proposal with a lot to buy.
Included pendant is identified now, but seller will not arrange any further assessment before collection. Our inspector could attend only if they permit it, and they've declined that too.
That leaves you choosing whether to buy the stated uncertainty. I'd compare the complete likely cost with your alternatives, not feel obliged to proceed because the seller finally supplied another serial number.
We declined. Untested included pendant plus application work removes the saving we need, and we don't want collection to be the first chance to resolve it. No claim that the arm itself is defective; this offer doesn't suit our purchase.
Useful buying result. Keep the actual excluded work beside the price in your comparison, so nobody revives the listing later as the bargain you inexplicably passed up.