Our FR5 puck is square until one finger closes

Reece and Mina, it sits flat before contact, then one finger pushes it sideways against the pocket wall and the opposite edge lifts; the full video shows both contacts.

Give maintenance that sequence in plain words. When I prepared a teaching note for a crooked pickup, I nearly reduced the operator's careful description to 'grip fault'. That would have thrown away the part that told the fitter where to look. Here you can say which contact moves the puck and which edge lifts, then show the actual clip beside it. Ask maintenance to compare the finger assembly and pocket against their drawings under isolation for inspection. Keep the old program versions available to controls as well; nobody should have to guess which offset was compensating for what.

Has the contact face been compared with the required revision, not only identified? Correctly labelled old hardware can still be the wrong assembly for this job.

Who owns that comparison?

Maintenance fitter with tooling; controls has the saved point changes. The pad label matches the parts list, but nobody has checked the backing arrangement yet.

Include the backing and mounting faces in the comparison, then. A correct pad reference does not describe where its contact face ends up when the complete assembly is fitted.

And keep the trainer's sheet unfinished until that answer comes back. A photograph with the right part label can look much more conclusive than it is.

Maintenance found the backing piece seated on debris, which angled the face; they have cleaned and reassembled it, with the retained puck and reviewed job due for the transfer check.

Worth asking how debris got trapped there, before it becomes the next person's recurring rebuild surprise.

Did the complete transfer improve?

Pickup and release improved in the controlled comparison, including the puck from the complaint; debris source still under review, and the maintenance instruction needs the backing-face check before handover.