Ask the designer to label locating, supporting and clamping contacts on the drawing. A convenient extra face can look helpful while preventing the intended datum faces from settling, but we need the actual contact observations before claiming that happened here.

One marked bracket repeats two seats depending on placement. A second sits consistently on a different corner. No clamp applied in that comparison.

Keep those pieces out of the mixed sample box until tooling has seen the difference.

And don't collapse those observations into samples rock. The first suggests an unstable locating choice for one piece; the second may be a consistent difference between pieces. Same fixture, two questions, and stronger clamping could conceal either without explaining it.

Have the measured samples been checked against the applicable part requirement before the nest is redesigned around them?

Quality found the first bracket within its checked requirements; the second has an out-of-limit edge condition at a side contact.

That explains a suspect second sample. The first bracket's alternate seats still need an answer.

Yes. Hold the second sample for its part review and continue the locating study with qualified parts. Keep the rejected sample's evidence too; it may help define what the incoming check must detect rather than what the nest should accommodate.

Has the designer explained the side contact's intended role? If it locates against an edge the drawing does not control for that purpose, simply buying better-looking samples may leave the scheme unresolved.

Designer found an extra side stop opposing the intended datum location on the acceptable bracket. They proposed removing that locating role, not increasing clamp force. The nonconforming sample remains separate.

That sounds like a specific design correction, but retain what the revised stop is meant to do, if anything. A drawing that just says remove contact can leave maintenance uncertain whether a later replacement part should touch there.

Will the change be reflected in the spare nest details too?

Yes. Revised drawing labels that area as clearance. Tooling altered the trial nest to the approved revision; the qualified bracket now repeats the intended contacts in the bench placement check.

Keep acceptance of the full application separate from that bench result, because the proposed FR10 presentation and inspection sequence have not been established by hand placement alone.

Recorded as corrected locating conflict on the trial nest, plus a separate incoming-part nonconformance. Automatic presentation and measurement validation remain open. No stronger clamp ordered.