My fixture-to-tray puck transfer is becoming unreliable despite repeated pickup edits. The tray only appears unchanged; the grip is visibly less square. What inspection sequence should precede another teaching change? I do not have evidence to call this arm drift.
Where is the puck first visibly out of square: seated in the source fixture, at finger contact, or after lift? Preserve the current program and the earlier edits before inspecting, so you can relate a physical finding to the setup that showed it.
Include the actual finger pair and mounting condition against the intended assembly. Matching-looking fingers can still be different revisions; I would not buy replacements from appearance alone.
The video starts after lift, so the first difference is unknown. Saved the point versions and retained the puck. Maintenance has the source fixture and tooling inspection request.
Record that missing early observation explicitly. An inspection may find wear, but without the sequence evidence you should not assume every visible worn feature caused the tilt.
Can maintenance identify the intended finger drawing before comparing contact geometry? A correct-looking pair needs a reference, not just agreement between the two fitted pieces.
Maintenance lead owns it. Supplier confirmed the finger drawing; the fitted pair matches. Source-fixture location is still unverified, and we have no authorised new observation of the pickup yet.
Then the next useful step remains that fixture comparison and an agreed observation of when the skew appears. The matching pair removes one suspicion; it does not establish the contacts are unworn or the mounting sound.
Keep those as separate checked and unchecked items in the report. Otherwise matches drawing can travel through a handover as tooling checked, which is a much bigger claim.