The drawing does not separate locating contacts from guides. I have asked the designer to mark their roles.

Will the person loading the nest be in that discussion, since they may be supplying a particular push or tilt that nobody has written into the tidy CAD picture?

That is useful context, Grace, but the operator cannot settle datum intent by describing what makes a bracket feel seated. The designer still needs to define the intended location and how the clamp should maintain it.

Agreed, I meant reveal hidden loading help, not have the operator approve the locating design

Our bench loading was by hand, with different people finding their own way to settle the brackets. That is part of the comparison to control.

Record the as-found seating and part condition first, within the approved manual inspection arrangement. Burrs, contamination or relevant part variation may explain a contact difference without the whole locating concept being wrong. Equally, removing one bit of debris would not prove every remaining contact is necessary.

Include the unclamped condition in the record, so the clamp's effect does not disappear behind one final seated photograph.

Can the designer explain which freedoms each locating contact constrains? That should expose redundant or conflicting intentions more clearly than asking whether the nest has too many pads in the abstract.

They now identify two features as loading guides rather than final locating contacts. The old illustration made all contacts look equally required.

That changes how to read the sketch, but it does not establish the guides actually clear the part after location. Ask for the relevant tolerance and clearance comparison with your real bracket variation.

Does the bench record show the brackets touching those guides after seating, or was that inferred from the drawing?

One identified bracket contacts a guide while seated. I have recorded that observation; we have not yet compared its dimensions with the intended clearance.

Then do not remove the guide on that observation alone; the designer needs to establish whether the part, guide or intended clearance differs from the requirement.

Who will carry the eventual contact definitions into the loading instruction? A corrected design can still be used badly if the handover tells the operator to force contact at a feature meant only to guide entry.

Tooling and the trainer will update it together after the clearance review. Stronger clamping is not approved, and the bench fit remains an open design question.

Please retain the identified awkward bracket for the revised comparison. It is the useful part here, even if a nicer specimen makes the next demonstration easier to photograph.