Our agreed check is the sample gripper loading the inspection fixture, not an empty sweep of the FR5. The latest clip has no readable package identity and cuts away before release. I have asked for a linked complete sequence. What would you keep open when the seller calls this demonstration finished?
What does the written demonstration agreement actually name, Gabriel: the fitted tool, your sample condition, the fixture and release, or only a general movement check?
It names the fitted sample gripper and our pieces through pickup, fixture loading and release. General movement is not the agreed deliverable. Package identity was also required so we could connect the handling to the supplied assembly.
Sent the missing identity, actual tool view and continuous release as separate items against that agreement. Kept the existing clip with what it does show. We have not accepted it as the completed demonstration.
Who on your side checks the returned sequence against the fixture requirement, rather than leaving you to decide from whether the arm movement looks smooth?
And include the operator's preparation in that check. A continuous transfer can still start after someone has done the awkward work that your production method would need to supply.
Farah, our integrator and fixture owner review it together. Callum, the agreed starting condition includes the incoming sample container and normal fixture preparation. We are not asking them to hide those steps to shorten the film.
Agreement only. Sales says a new recording is being arranged. Our review list still says not received, which is less exciting than their ready for shipment message but more accurate.
New recording received. Labels and fitted gripper stay linked into the handling, but the operator removes one awkward sample before pickup. The integrator has asked why that piece was excluded and whether it was within our agreed incoming variation.
Does the clip show enough to identify the removed sample, Gabriel? That would let the fixture owner answer about this actual piece rather than debate a hypothetical bad part.
Yes, it is one of our identified trial samples. Fixture owner confirms it is within the agreed incoming variation. We have asked for that piece to remain in the handling comparison, not be replaced with another neat one.
The identity part is useful progress. Keep the excluded sample as the remaining handling question; rejecting every useful view would make the next request vague again, but accepting the whole demonstration would erase the very variation it was meant to cover.
Has the seller explained the removal? It could be a real tooling problem or the demonstrator tidying the tray without understanding why that piece was there.
Demonstrator thought the irregular-looking sample was outside the test. Seller has accepted our fixture owner's clarification and agreed to repeat the defined sequence with the whole identified set. No revised result yet.
Put that sample description into the demonstration brief itself, not only this email chain, so the next person recording it doesn't helpfully make the same choice.
It did. The repeated linked recording includes normal preparation and every identified sample through pickup, fixture placement and release. Integrator and fixture owner have accepted the agreed demonstration, including the sample previously removed.
Give the handover that identified tested scope and the preparation it used. It is a useful acceptance of this demonstration, not a promise that every future sample or fixture variant is covered.