A close view can help with the adapter. It still needs a visible connection to the identified setup doing the task; two unrelated close-ups would leave your original question intact.

Keep the demonstration agreement beside the request, including the sample and destination condition, so the new recording answers the existing requirement rather than accidentally creates a different test.

The agreement names our lightweight samples and placement into the tray, with the mounting adapter fitted. I've marked identity, adapter view, pickup and release as missing from the current clip. No extra performance claim requested.

Does your requested release view show the sample after the tool leaves, rather than end at the moment it reaches the tray?

That is part of showing the agreed placement, I think. A clip ending at contact leaves the viewer guessing whether the sample stayed there.

Would you insist on a single unbroken camera view, Victor? A wide shot may identify the setup while making the tooling too small to inspect.

No. Clear linked views are fine. I want the relationship established, not a cinematography rule that hides the useful detail.

And retain the original file. A revised recording can satisfy the request without becoming evidence that the first anonymous clip showed your package all along.

Seller sent an identified setup view and an adapter close-up, but the transfer file still cuts off before release. The identity link is now usable; the placement observation is not complete.

Have you sent that exact remaining gap back, rather than rejecting the whole new set without explanation?

Yes. I acknowledged the identity and tooling views, then asked for the same identified setup to show placement through withdrawal and the sample left in the tray. That is the only missing agreed observation now.

Good. That keeps them from filming the label again while leaving the useful end of the transfer out. Did their technical person acknowledge the specific request?

Oscar, the acknowledgement will help correspondence, but Ravi still needs the observation itself. I would not let an enthusiastic yes become the completed checklist entry.

Agreed, I was asking whether it reached the person filming. Not counting a reply as evidence of placement.

Technical contact acknowledged it and named the same sample and tray arrangement. I have left the placement entry open. We are waiting for the file, not arranging our own commissioning around their promise.

When it arrives, compare the demonstrated arrangement with the identified tooling views again. It would be easy to solve the filming problem while quietly changing the setup.

New file arrived. It links back to the identified package and fitted adapter, shows the agreed sample transfer, then the tool withdrawing with the sample left in the tray. Our reviewer is checking it against the original demonstration list.

Does the reviewer have all three files together, including the earlier close-up that makes the adapter inspectable?

They do. The agreed pre-shipment demonstration is now accepted and the files are retained with the order. That closes this recording request, not local installation or every later sample variant.