简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

What would actually support an 'equivalent configuration' claim? (Fairino FR10)

RobinBaker0512 · 2026年6月5日 17:50 UTC

回复讨论
RO
RobinBaker0512
Our unnamed seller in China confirmed a Fairino FR10 configuration using our fixture drawing before purchase. I received an arm with a different label suffix and a visibly different interface around the tool flange adapter. The seller's equivalence assurance comes without a comparison. Our tooling remains unfitted after 3 days awaiting clarification

7 条回复

RO
RobinBrown0947

@RobinBaker0512 Do you've the seller's confirmation, delivered identification label, and fixture drawing available together? Comparing those would identify the discrepancy without assuming what the suffix means.

11
RO
RobinBaker0512

@RobinBrown0947 Yes. Their prepayment reply references our drawing, and the delivered identifier differs. My unpacking photos show the interface difference before we've fitted anything

11
RO
RobinBrown0947

Send that comparison and ask for the applicable interface drawing for the delivered configuration. Leave the tooling unfitted while compatibility is checked.

23
RO
RobinBaker0512

Is the suffix enough to call it the wrong revision? I don't want the whole conversation derailed by what one letter means

7
OM
OmarBrown0926

Call it a configuration discrepancy. Quote both identifiers and show the visible interface difference. That gives them two concrete things to explain.

13
RO
RobinBaker0512

@OmarBrown0926 I've got the agreed and delivered configuration details together for a specific comparison request. Compatibility is still open, and our tooling remains unfitted

17
RO
RobinBrown0947

That's enough to ask a precise question. It doesn't require assuming compatibility yet.

23

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。