Neither has done that; one attaches a standard gripper sheet while its sketch uses longer fingers, and the second gives only our part mass.

The first sheet describes the wrong assembly, then. Ask them to include the extensions and adapter before claiming suitability. Don't average two incomplete answers and call the result a conservative estimate.

A complete assembly model would also show whether the proposed orientation can reach the receiving nest. I am dealing with a separate access sketch that omitted most of the tool; load and clearance assumptions should not drift apart.

Naomi, does that review include getting a hand tool onto the fittings later? We've had a compact arrangement that was miserable to service.

That is not yet defined in my separate layout, Liam. For Nathan's purchase comparison I would include replacement access with the service routing, rather than infer it from a collision-free transfer.

We fitted a bulkier replacement fitting after a leak and only then realised the original review had no room for it. Specifying the actual spare mattered. 'Similar thread' was an optimistic definition of equivalent.

Keep the approved assembly references with stores, Beth, because a beautifully documented original tool is still vulnerable to somebody ordering the nearest-looking replacement.

A controlled replacement list would help, provided changes outside it go back for review. I would not treat a matching connection thread as a complete compatibility assessment.

Both suppliers now have a request for complete proposed assemblies and their load assumptions; I've included service routing and asked the integrator to own later changes, without pretending all replacements are already selected.

Will the review cover loaded and empty movements, Nathan, rather than only the most photogenic carrying pose?

And any reduced motion the supplier needs for its assessment. A technically acceptable case might still fail the output requirement if the quote quietly assumes a much gentler cycle.

Nora, that's worth keeping visible, although slower isn't automatically worse for a small order. We traded a little cycle time for easier changeovers and still came out ahead over the actual batch.

Rosa, both movement conditions are in the request; Nora and Beth, I will compare full-order time with the stated assumptions, but neither supplier has returned a complete assessment yet.

Then the initial mass claim remains unsupported for this assembly. I would like to hear what the complete review changes, especially whether the extended fingers are still the proposed solution after access and motion are included.