locator helped, replacement tray disagreed

The first tray sat against the locator consistently. The replacement rocks slightly. I hadn't included tray identity in my notes, which was optimistic data management.

Rocking is worth investigating before more runs. Does the replacement sit flat away from the locator, or have you only observed it in place?

Only in place. I've asked maintenance to inspect it out of the cell. No further claim about the tray being bent until they check.

Is it actually the same tray revision? Stores gets 'equivalent' replacements offered all the time, and equivalent can mean it holds the same parts rather than it contacts your new locator correctly.

The purchasing description may help there. I would compare it with the physical contact features, because matching stock names need not mean matching geometry.

Photograph the contact points. A rocking tray is a symptom, not a dimensional report.

Has the inspection found where it bears? That could distinguish a tray issue from a locator that only happens to suit the first tray.

Different underside rib on the replacement. It contacts the locator before the intended edge seats. The tray isn't bent. Maintenance found the two revisions mixed in storage.

Then somebody needs to own that revision mix. Otherwise the next shift will grab the wrong tray and 'fix' your pickup points. Put the identification where a person choosing a tray can see it.

Your update can now name the limitation: improvement with one tray revision, interference with another. That is a more useful finding than a blanket success or failure.

And don't relabel the second revision defective unless it fails its own requirements. It may be perfectly serviceable elsewhere, just unsuitable for the locator you've added to this station.

Agreed. Stores will separate them by revision, not scrap them. I've rewritten the update and asked tooling whether one locator can accommodate both without losing a reliable datum.

Ask how both would be verified. Accommodation alone isn't repeatable location.

For now we're specifying the original revision. A shared locator design remains undecided. The post now says what was tried, what failed and which tray each result belongs to.

That lets someone else judge whether your result applies to their setup. Have you linked the revised tray instruction beside the original success claim?

Please do. People read the first triumphant paragraph, buy the part, and discover the correction three pages later. Editing the original post with the limitation saves everyone that little adventure.