@LeahBrown0930 On my sketch, the mounting holes and outside wall both determine lateral position. Everything is labelled as a locator, with no stated priority between those contacts.

Take that overlap to your fixture designer with the hole-to-wall tolerances. Relieving the wall contact looks like a candidate worth reviewing.

@LeahBrown0930 You don't know which datum must win yet. Relieving the wall could remove the reference the operation actually needs.

I got ahead of the drawing requirement there. Establish the necessary datum scheme before deciding which secondary contact can be changed to accommodate permitted variation.

@LeahBrown0930 I'll have the designer mark that explicitly. I'm not modifying the nest from a nominal CAD view and a hunch.

@LeahBrown0930 I'm lost on support versus locator. Aren't both just touching the part?

The distinction is their purpose: a locator establishes position, while a support carries load without demanding an incompatible position. The contact design must make those purposes compatible.

On my fixture, we called every contact a support until the tolerance sketch showed two of them steering the same direction. The names hadn't helped.

@AnilBell0636 Did your review start with measurements of the poor-fitting samples? We've tended to set ours aside, and I suspect they may be particularly informative.

Keep them identified and compare them with the drawing. A sample fitting badly in your nest doesn't, by itself, make the sample wrong.

@AnilBell0636 Our inspection sheets show the awkward samples are within drawing limits. Their hole-to-wall dimensions differ within that allowance. So rejecting them would need another reason.

Those acceptable dimensional variations belong in the fixture requirements. A design based only on nominal geometry hasn't shown that it accommodates the permitted parts.

Request a sketch tracing how permitted variation is accommodated. That gives you something more concrete to review than a general assurance about sufficient clearance.

@LeahBrown0930 Could you just add clearance everywhere and let the clamp hold it?

@KaiCarter0976 You still need a repeatable datum location. General looseness may remove the conflict while losing the position your operation needs.

I see that increasing the clamp force doesn't define the intended position. How can I explain that constructively to the person who proposed it?

Frame it around the condition the clamp must retain: ask where the part should be located first, then how clamping maintains that position under the process loads.

@LeahBrown0930 In my separate review, drawing the intended located condition helped. It turned a vague argument about clamp strength into a discussion of the position being retained.

My next step is clear: get the required datums established and review how the nest accommodates acceptable variation. The planning question is answered, while a fixture revision still depends on the designer's assessment.