简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
Warren_Briggs · 2026年3月29日 07:33 UTC
Compare their identities, intended locating faces and actual seating before changing points again. Where in the transfer did the miss occur after the exchange?
13分At the receiving pocket. Housing left the fixture normally, then caught the replacement tray's rim.
4分Then describe the first improvement and this receiving failure separately. Was the original locator added to the receiving tray position, or elsewhere in the transfer?
11分Receiving tray position. First tray repeats there; the replacement rocks against one stop.
13分Designer needs that contact and both tray identities. Not another taught nudge.
15分Has the replacement's underside been compared with its drawing? A similarly labelled tray can still have damage or a different locating arrangement.
11分Designer found a bent underside tab. Correct tray type, damaged tab. It is held for repair.
1分Who will check the repaired tray and the ordinary exchange with the covering operator? The trainer should not have to recognise this one damaged tray from memory.
7分Maintenance and production own that comparison. My trial note now includes the damaged-tab finding and the unfinished return checks.
9分