Sent the accepted spare list and our receiving check. No ambiguity about the installed adapter being present; we need the additional kit.

Ask the parts contact to repeat the adapter reference in the supply answer. An agreement that something is missing should not become permission to send whichever adapter they have nearby.

They acknowledged the omitted kit and sent a photograph of an allocated adapter. Its reference differs from our agreed one. I've asked whether that is a substitution.

Keep it unaccepted pending the answer. A part allocated to your order can still be the wrong part. Ask for the actual supply proposal, not a photograph labelled ready.

Seller confirms a substitute, claiming the same mounting pattern. No assessment supplied for our tool. We requested the agreed reference or defined alternatives instead of accepting that claim.

Has the original reference become unavailable, or did they simply choose a different stocked item? Those lead to different planning options.

And Jasper need not buy an equivalence assessment before the seller answers Sara's question. Original availability is still a basic missing fact in this supply discussion.

The original is available at their parts store. They agreed to send that reference with the other kit contents, at no additional charge, and sent a matching packing list.

Collected yet, or still a packing proposal?

Still packing. No carrier acceptance record. Stores continues to show the complete kit as missing.

Has anything changed since that packing answer? In particular, collection of the parcel with the agreed reference, not a new photograph of the substitute.

Carrier now confirms collection against that parcel reference. Kit is in transit, not received. The packing list identifies the original adapter; stores will check the actual item on arrival.