The tidy-tray demo started with every puck centred by hand, while our workshop tray arrived as normally loaded; I didn't record the centring time, and neither clip includes a tray change

Then retain both as demonstrations of their stated conditions. Neither is a like-for-like throughput comparison. I'd ask for the same incoming tray condition before ranking them.

Include who prepares and changes the trays. A supplier can offer a different presentation method, but your comparison needs its labour, tooling and handover scope. A clean transfer is only part of the work your shift will own

Mia, agreed, though I wouldn't force identical trays if one complete proposal genuinely benefits from a different fixture. I'd force an honest common starting condition and include the change needed to reach its preferred tray.

That's what I mean by including the preparation method. Rosa can compare different complete proposals, provided neither gets its preferred presentation delivered by an invisible person before the assessment starts

What should happen on an empty or misloaded pocket in that comparison, Rosa, rather than having the demonstrator quietly fix it off camera?

And record any reduced motion needed for the awkward tray. I mean the complete assessed cycle, not a request to make it faster for the video.

Lin's interruption point could change the support cost more than a small motion-time difference. I'd include a covering operator in the agreed handover check instead of letting both suppliers remain part of their own demonstration.

Empty and misloaded pockets are in the agreed supervised assessment, with defined stops and escalation rather than improvised recovery; both suppliers have named their training and support scope, and preparation time will be recorded separately from motion

Have the complete-order comparisons happened now? I would be interested in which part of the workload actually distinguishes them once preparation is visible

They have: the tidy-fixture route has a faster transfer but needs manual re-presentation, while the FR5 route is slower in motion and lower in total labour on the assessed order; both used their reviewed movement limits, with all help logged

And the FR5 interruption and covering-operator checks, Rosa, did those pass or are they still outstanding?

Completed within the agreed scope, Lin; the covering operator recognised the empty-pocket and misload cases and used the specified escalation, without the demonstrator correcting the tray invisibly, so we've shortlisted the FR5 proposal for detailed integration costing

That is a shortlist supported by a defined comparison, not a claim that one arm wins every puck job. Keep the workload and preparation records with the next cost review.