No readable package or pad-set identifiers. Pickup is distant and the destination is outside the view. I've requested order-linked equipment identification and the complete agreed transfer, not another general motion recording.

Keep that request tied to the agreed demonstration scope. I wouldn't call an unrelated clip a failed sample test either; it hasn't shown the agreed test happening.

I've inherited tooling where the pictured spare belonged to another revision, despite the main assembly looking familiar. Ask the seller to identify the fitted contact-pad set in the demonstration, not merely put the correct arm label at the start of a film. Maintenance will need that distinction after delivery too.

Does the agreed task define what successful placement and release should show, including the receiving arrangement, so the next camera view can be assessed against something more specific than the housing arriving nearby?

The receiving view matters in my request too; a fixture screen hides our contact and the tray is out of frame, so I cannot tell whether the recorded motion completed the handling we agreed

Aaron, that is a visibility gap even if the equipment is identified. Leah has both gaps, so I would not let a readable serial in the next clip count as the handling answer as well

Include any manual preparation or intervention used during the agreed demonstration. It is part of the observed method.

Could a second linked view show release at the fixture? Not another unrelated close-up, but a view that belongs to the same identified setup and handling result.

A second view can answer that without anyone changing the protective arrangement for a better film. Ask the demonstrator to plan the recording under their normal authorised test conditions. Camera convenience is not a reason to improvise the setup or conceal an intervention.

If they send separate views, keep the link to the same samples, tool revision and stated test conditions explicit; I would find that more useful than one polished montage where a close-up could come from a different run without anybody noticing.

The linked second view now shows the agreed housings seated and released into the identified fixture, with the same pad assembly and preparation. Our technical reviewer matched it to the demonstration scope; that missing handling item is now accepted.

Does that acceptance cover only the agreed pre-shipment demonstration? I would keep receipt checks and installation assessment separate, so a good recording does not become a claim about the setup after transport.

Yes, Callum. Only the defined pre-shipment sample check is closed. The accepted record identifies its limits and configuration; receipt, installed assessment and the rest of the purchase obligations have not been marked complete.