I added a tray locator on our supervised UR5e housing-transfer bench. A few runs appeared more consistent, then another miss followed replacement of the tray. I want to report both observations without claiming the locator fixed the transfer. The job is fixture-to-tray, so I also need to be clearer about which event I called a pickup miss.
What did you actually observe at the miss: no housing acquired from the fixture, a misplaced delivery, or simply an interrupted transfer? Those require different descriptions.
The transfer stopped and the housing was still at the source fixture. I did not capture finger contact. I called it a pickup miss from that final condition, not from watching the complete acquisition.
I changed that wording. The report now says the earlier supervised runs appeared steadier with the locator, followed by a stopped transfer after tray replacement. Neither observation isolates the locator's effect.
Was the replacement tray confirmed seated against the locator, or only installed? That detail could qualify the changeover observation without inventing the missing contact sequence.
Only installed. We did not record locator contact before that stop. I have left the field unknown and asked the cell trainer to include it in the next approved observation. No cause or recovery change established.