CalebChan1102 · 26 Jan 2026, 04:17 UTC
Compare the retained puck's support and finger contacts during the isolated maintenance check. Include the intended assembly drawing, not only the latest pickup point.
2 pointsTop looks level before contact. Cannot see the underside support in the clip.
23 pointsThat hidden support is worth a look. I have had a round part seem seated from above while one small damaged edge carried it off the intended pads. Closing the grip then made the wobble visible, which was rather unfairly blamed on the fingers. Not saying that's yours, but the initial seat deserves its own check.
3 pointsSame retained puck for the comparison?
19 pointsYes. Also three current pucks and the earlier reference, all identified.
8 pointsUseful spread. Have inspection check the relevant faces against the current drawing as well. A damaged part and a fixture contact in the wrong place can look similar from the front, and they do not call for the same repair.
-2 pointsKeep the complete release in the eventual verification too. A better pickup alone will not settle the tray transfer.
4 pointsPriya's right about the drawing. My old reference happened to be the most flattering piece in the cupboard. The production parts still deserved a fixture that located them correctly.
23 pointsInspection found a damaged lower edge on the retained puck. Other pucks meet the drawing.
21 pointsDid the damaged edge contact the fixture?
12 pointsYes. Maintenance showed it holding that puck above one support. Normal pieces reach both supports.
-1 pointsSeparate the damaged piece and have controls review the edits made around it before the supervised transfer comparison. Do not choose an old program merely because the old reference fits.
17 pointsDamaged puck retained by inspection. Controls review assigned. Return trial still to do; no further pickup edits.
25 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .