UR5e cover comparison waiting on a holder nobody has defined

Tooling's proposal supports the rear face and adds a front lip; vision says the lip hides part of the area around the faint mark, so the first common review has exposed a conflict rather than solved it.

Good to find it on the proposal. Please don't let them crop that corner away and call the next picture cleaner. Is the lip doing a locating job or just stopping the cover sliding off during loading?

Both, according to tooling; it is currently part of the intended seat, not a disposable guard, and they are considering a different contact arrangement with quality involved because it touches the finished surface.

Would a second view answer the coverage gap with the existing proposed contacts, or does the seating itself remain unreliable? I would compare those questions before purchasing another light or committing to a new holder.

Oscar, a second view could be an option, but it needs its own defined presentation and coverage. It can't simply borrow a convenient old image of the same-looking cover.

And who loads it? I ask because a holder can behave nicely for the person who designed it. Our maintenance sheet once showed the important inner face beautifully in a photograph, while the actual fitted face was still hidden from the person checking it. I don't mean make the operator solve the camera problem. I mean the proposed seating check needs to be something a person can really perform, not a sentence everyone nods at because the drawing is clear.

Can the ordinary loader identify the correct seat without touching the finish in a way the comparison excludes? That small preparation step can become an unpriced job on every cover.

The current concept needs the loader to feel along an edge, which quality has not accepted as the appearance-handling method; Ben and Harish, that is going into the joint review rather than being left as an operator habit.

Keep the two-view possibility explicit alongside the changed-contact proposal, with who owns assessing each. They may have different costs and handling consequences; neither deserves to become the default merely because the other has an awkward question.

Both remain candidates, Oscar; vision owns the two-view comparison and tooling the revised contact, with quality and the loader included in the common review, and no thresholds or new lighting selected.