Our photos show the crushed corner and displaced restraint before unpacking, with separate wider views locating the damage around the tool interface cover. The delivery documents are also retained.

@LeahBell0669 Provide the photographs and delivery details, asking for qualified assessment and suitable handling instructions. Keep the equipment off while the seller's power-on suggestion lacks an inspection procedure.

@AnikaAbbott0073 Should I call it transport damage? I know how it looked on arrival, not where the knock happened.

@LeahBell0669 Report what you observed on receipt. Establishing responsibility for the damage isn't necessary to describe the crate condition and visible marks accurately.

The shifted restraint suggests an impact reached the equipment. Make sure the assessor sees that photo, not just the outer crate.

It shows a shifted restraint. We don't know the force path or when it moved. Don't turn the photograph into a diagnosis.

@IsaacAllen0346 Fair correction. I should've said it's relevant to the assessment, not proof of an impact path. Report the displacement as observed.

@AnikaAbbott0073 Could a power-on test establish whether the visible damage affects the equipment?

A startup wouldn't rule out hidden damage. With visible damage and moved supports, get the assessment method agreed before energizing anything.

@AnikaAbbott0073 That's my worry. I don't want 'it lights up' becoming the entire condition report. It's staying off.

@LeahBell0669 On a separate machine delivery of mine, the wide shots were more useful than my dramatic close-up. The reviewer needed to know where the mark sat.

Would labelling the images help, or should I leave the originals alone?

Preserve the original photographs and use separate labelled copies for explanation. Any labels or arrows should leave the relevant damage visible.

Keep arrival observations distinct from anything found during unpacking. Same report is fine; pretending you saw it all at the door isn't.