In the footage, it sits consistently in the checked fixture and turns during gripping. So the crooked position isn't there at the start.

Preserve the current settings and pause further nudges. Have maintenance inspect finger mounting, contact surfaces and tray seating under the proper isolation procedure, using that observation to guide the checks.

@LouisBell0659 I've checked the maintenance history and found a pad replacement preceding the initial pickup-point correction. That establishes a relevant sequence of changes to investigate.

@LinBrooks0792 That sounds like the pad replacement caused it. Check the installation against the specified arrangement.

Timing isn't enough to call it the cause. Check the pads, yes, but don't let one maintenance entry explain away fixture variation.

You're right; the history supports a check, not a conclusion. Inspect the pad installation and gripping surfaces while retaining tray location in the investigation.

On my own setup, we found worn contact surfaces and inconsistent tray seating together. Fixing only the pickup point made the symptoms move around

@CalebChan1102 How did you keep those two effects apart? Ours already has enough point edits to make the history messy.

We kept a known reference configuration and had maintenance check one condition at a time. We didn't roll back points blindly after finding wear

@CalebChan1102 Would restoring the initial taught positions be appropriate after inspecting the tool, or might those positions no longer correspond to the actual setup?

The original points are only a suitable reference if the confirmed tooling, frames and presentation still match. Have the responsible technician review those relationships before planning a supervised check.

@LouisBell0659 We haven't verified that match yet. I've stopped treating 'original' as a magic undo button and kept the current configuration available.

Good. Also, 'tray looks the same' isn't a seating measurement. Your pre-contact observation helps, but it doesn't cover every tray replacement.

@ReeceArcher0384 The supervised comparison found seating variation as well as worn gripping surfaces. So we really do have more than one thing to investigate.

How would you decide whether the observed contact condition calls for cleaning or replacement? Is there a criterion beyond whether the surface looks worn?

The maintenance decision should follow the tool's documented criteria and qualified assessment. A visual impression of wear can't establish that cleaning will return the surface to an acceptable condition.

I kept photos of my setup's contact surfaces with the maintenance notes. They helped explain what had changed without relying on 'it used to look better'

Given the seating variation, should the supervised validation include normal tray removal and replacement rather than only transfers from one undisturbed tray?

Yes, include ordinary replacement in the agreed supervised plan, with representative workpieces. Record grip condition and placement, along with any assistance needed.