It used a flat sample supported underneath. The report doesn't assess the full panel geometry or say what film condition was represented

@RobinBaker0512 Give the tooling specialist the complete panel drawing and stack specification, requesting assessment of distributed support alongside a distinct proposal for confirming single-panel pickup.

Distributed support means more cups spread out? That's where my imagination stops, honestly

A spread of contacts is worth comparing because it can reduce unsupported panel spans. Include the edges whose positions matter during placement on the drawing used for assessment.

I'd qualify that suggestion: adding contacts doesn't establish a suitable support layout without considering local flexibility, and it doesn't answer whether one layer was acquired.

Fair correction. I mean a layout assessed against your panel's flexibility, not a cup-count target. Layer confirmation remains its own requirement.

Why can't good vacuum mean one panel? Wouldn't two make the reading different?

A cup can seal to the upper surface while another panel adheres underneath. That reading alone doesn't establish how many layers you're carrying.

I've checked our incoming records and found multiple permitted protective-film conditions. Since the quote assumes one stack condition, I'll identify that gap in the tooling request

@RobinBaker0512 On my panel setup, film details lived with purchasing and never reached the tooling drawing. Both teams thought 'same panel' was a complete description.

Would you put film and interleaving on the receiving spec, or just send samples? I'm trying to stop this turning into another missing attachment

@RobinBaker0512 Have the material supplier and process owner agree the permitted stack conditions in the specification. The sample set can then represent a defined range rather than implicitly setting it.

The detection proposal also needs to explain an uncertain result. Failure to distinguish the supplied condition mustn't be interpreted as evidence of a single panel.

I'll ask the integrator what the confirmation method establishes and what happens when it can't decide. I won't pick a sensor from the catalogue myself

Should the support assessment cover placement as well as the panel's condition during transfer?

@AmaraArcher0426 The assessment should include placement and release because a satisfactory seal doesn't establish that the relevant panel edges are controlled at the receiving fixture.

The receiving drawing identifies two placement edges. Neither appears on the supplier's contact sketch. I'll include that drawing in the support request

@RobinBaker0512 On my setup, adding the receiving geometry changed the discussion from 'it holds' to 'what shape arrives here'. That was a much better tooling question.

My planning question has a clear answer: assess actual panel support and single-panel confirmation as well as sealing. I can proceed with that review while leaving transfer suitability dependent on its findings