Keep the improvement in it too. Which tray and which observed change?
Our UR5e spacer tray behaves until we use the other tray
JonasChan1068 · 17 Dec 2025, 23:11 UTC
18 replies
Who prepared the trays during the successful runs, Jonas?
10 pointsOur replacement recess was outside its drawing requirement; have you compared yours, rather than assume the new locator itself is wrong?
13 pointsAlex, first tray seated without the old sideways shuffle. Louis, I prepared it. JonasChen, not measured yet.
12 pointsYou can describe that observed improvement now, with the preparation you supplied, while leaving the replacement-tray problem open. It does not have to be either a universal fix or a useless modification.
20 pointsOur night shift once got a locator instruction that assumed everyone knew where to push the tray. The author had done every trial. Let the eventual loader try the seating check before it becomes routine.
19 pointsAisha, exactly; the designer's practiced hands are an unlisted fixture component in a lot of demonstrations
15 pointsThat operator comparison is useful, but the replacement tray still needs its physical discrepancy checked; a clearer instruction cannot compensate for a tray that does not meet the intended locating geometry.
9 pointsAaron, agreed. I'd keep both jobs visible in the handover. Otherwise one team will wait for a better instruction and the other will wait for new hardware, and neither will own the next trial.
8 pointsTooling has both trays and the missed spacer now. Shift trainer owns the loading check with them.
5 pointsAsk tooling to define the acceptable tray interface from the intended assembly drawing. A comparison between two trays may reveal a difference without establishing which geometry the locator is meant to accept.
5 pointsHas the replacement been measured yet, Jonas?
8 pointsYes. One locating recess is shallow against the drawing. Supplier reviewing replacement; no trial result.
18 pointsKeep that result tied to the measured tray; our spare-tray checks remained open after finding the first bad recess.
21 pointsAnd did the ordinary loader try the first tray without your help?
16 pointsNot yet. Check is planned, not done. First-tray result still describes my supervised setup.
16 pointsThanks for saying that plainly; the next reader can follow what improved without inheriting an independence claim nobody tested
6 pointsWill you put the eventual replacement and loader results in the same note? That would help the other shift see whether the changeover instruction actually covers the trays they receive.
15 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .