I have seen a single-sheet demonstration accepted as a stack trial because both used the same part number. Ask for the source condition in the report, not just confirmation that they used your panel; stacked surfaces can behave differently from an isolated sample.

Would checking the vacuum value tell them if there were two? I understand that it shows something about the seal, but I do not know whether an extra sheet would change that reading reliably.

Not by itself; a sealed top sheet can carry another beneath it, so single-sheet confirmation needs suitable independent evidence.

The supplier confirms it was one panel presented alone, and the close-up hides most edges. I have asked them to propose stack separation and count confirmation, not repeat that clip.

Keep support in the request too; solving count doesn't stop one thin panel flexing.

For the trial, describe the stack condition you actually intend to receive, including relevant surface variation and how it is replenished. I would also ask how an uncertain pickup is contained and identified without making the operator reach under a suspended panel to count it.

Thanks, Toby. I was treating vacuum as a count measurement when it was only evidence about contact with the upper sheet.

Their proposed trial includes our representative stack and a separate thickness check, but the note only describes its nominal single-sheet result. I cannot tell what it does with a doubtful reading.

Ask for the expected discrimination and uncertainty with your actual thickness range, plus the defined response when no reliable decision is available.

A named sensor isn't the evidence; can they show the troublesome samples being distinguished?

Hazel is right, but do not invent a troublesome sample by handling sheets unsafely. Let the tooling team define controlled representative single and multiple-sheet cases and evaluate the proposed detection arrangement within the assessed trial setup.

Does the thickness check happen while the tool supports the sheet, or after it has been placed somewhere? I am trying to understand where the doubtful panel would be when someone needs to deal with it.

They have revised the proposal: supported checking before entry to the assembly fixture, with an unresolved result held out of normal delivery. The tooling team is defining that recovery; it is not a manual count under the tool.

Did they finally include a view of the whole panel at release?

Yes. The controlled trial distinguished the documented single and double samples, but a single panel flexed into the fixture lip during release. That is now a support conflict, not a count failure.

Keep the count findings limited to those recorded conditions and take the lip contact back to tooling. Changing the support or placement could alter the measurement presentation as well, so the next trial should not inherit a blanket count pass from this one.

Agreed; I have not accepted the tool, and the next proposal must address the lip contact with its checking arrangement still represented.

That answers where the remaining work is. Who will demonstrate recovery from an unresolved thickness result when the support proposal changes?