Yes, the written scope includes our sample housings and gripper. The clip doesn't show a readable package identity or a clear pickup and placement.

Then general motion doesn't satisfy that scope. It also doesn't prove the hardware is wrong.

I'd ask for the identified package and fitted tool to be linked visibly to the agreed sample sequence. Several useful-looking close-ups can still leave you unsure whether the label, gripper and moving arm belong together.

Is the seller answering which part of that scope they can demonstrate, or just sending the same movement clip again?

Same clip with a new message saying tested. I have replied with the missing identity and sample-handling views listed against the agreed scope.

Would an agreed remote witnessed session be a practical alternative, if the recording request keeps producing the wrong evidence? It would still need the same package and task identification.

A live call is an option, not proof by itself. Keep the same acceptance questions.

Dinesh, yes. A helpful person waving a camera around can leave as many gaps as a short clip. I'd send the viewing sequence beforehand so the call doesn't become another improvised tour.

Nina, is your request limited to the agreed demonstration, or are you adding application acceptance beyond what was included?

The agreed demonstration only. I am not treating this as final commissioning, and I haven't added new acceptance criteria. They have not agreed a witnessed session yet.

That distinction should stay in your reply. You need evidence of the promised pre-shipment task; later installation and application checks remain separate even if a better demonstration arrives.

They sent a readable package-label photograph, but it still isn't linked to the movement clip or sample handling. I've kept the demonstration requirement open.

Identity photograph received; identified sample demonstration still missing. Two different things to record.