Trial report gives a drawing revision. Delivered piece has a different stamped reference. I've sent both, with photos showing the extra stand-off.

Extra stand-off already needs explaining. Same bolt pattern is not the whole job.

Ask them to show the changed mounting stack against the trial drawing. Easier to discuss than equivalent.

That's the other half of it, Grace. Local toolmaker confirmed the trial stack, not this piece. Seller hasn't named whoever assessed the replacement, just forwarded the same description again.

I'd request the design comparison and responsible technical contact together; I can't infer suitability from those photos.

Or ask for the specified part back. You didn't order an unpaid redesign exercise.

Robin, replacement might be quickest. Tony still needs confirmation that the original is available.

I've asked for that option too. I'd accept a properly supported alternative in principle, but not pay our toolmaker to discover what their substitution was meant to achieve.

Keep any redesign cost separate from the missing technical answer. Neither should disappear into commissioning.

Their engineer has now identified the substitute as a longer general-purpose adapter. No sample-tray assessment exists for it. They can manufacture the trial revision and have offered to supply that instead.

Does the offer include the matching fixing pack and an actual lead time?

And use the trial revision on the replacement acknowledgement. Not just original type.

At least somebody finally answered what equivalent was based on. Nothing application-specific, by the sound of it.

Correct, Robin. Reece and Owen, their acknowledgement names the trial drawing and fixing pack, with a manufacturing estimate that our purchasing person is checking. I've chosen restoration of the specified stack. No replacement dispatched yet.

Useful decision. Leave installation held until the actual replacement is checked, not merely because the order wording improved.