Our cheap pilot became a permanent fixture development job. Put a spending limit and a stop decision in writing before the first special part is ordered.

I had assumed the existing operator would prepare and clear between other jobs. That time was not priced. We need to compare complete orders, not the unload movement alone.

Which current order best represents the changeovers that make your colleague doubt the proposal? A long uninterrupted run may be useful later, but it may not answer this disagreement.

Thomas's spending limit helps, though I would include a useful next decision as well as stop. A pilot can find a narrower worthwhile job even when the original all-products claim does not survive.

We selected a recent mixed order with two enclosure variants. My colleague wants the fixture change included and the same finished output counted for manual and assisted routes.

What happens when the second variant turns up before the first one is finished?

That's the bit our quote called a simple changeover. Simple for the person who made the fixture, less simple for everyone else.

Include that interruption as a defined case if it occurs in the actual work. Do not add every imaginable disruption, or the small pilot will never have a boundary.

It occurs often enough to include. We have a capped proposal for an assessed supplier trial and a separate current-method observation; no arm order. Fixture preparation is itemised instead of absorbed into demonstration time.

Keep discomfort and awkward handling observations alongside the time figures. You might accept a little more preparation to remove a genuinely difficult task, but that benefit should come from the comparison rather than from general enthusiasm for automation.

Who pays to revise the fixture if the first trial cannot handle the second variant?

No automatic revision budget. The first trial is complete under the agreed setup: the second variant needed manual presentation and a fixture reset, so the mixed order used more staff time than the current route.

Did that include your own assistance, or only the operator's time?

Both, including my fixture help and the change back. The operator did not identify a handling improvement sufficient to justify that extra work in this comparison.

Then the original mixed-order proposal has not earned the purchase. A stable-variant application could be a separate question, but it should not be used to reinterpret a comparison that included the actual interruptions for a reason.

Have you and your colleague made the purchase decision from those results?

We have decided against buying for this unloading job. We will retain the current method and the trial records, rather than fund another fixture revision to avoid admitting the comparison went against my idea.

That is what the stop decision was for; useful work can end with no purchase.