I would resist turning this into a complete strip-down immediately. Photograph the assembled condition and compare accessible reference features first, within your inspection procedure. Dismantling everything can remove the thing you wanted to understand.

That is reasonable. I meant a controlled inspection, not dismantling by default. The as-found condition is particularly important when several small program adjustments have already accumulated.

The spacer looks angled against the fingers. I cannot yet say the tool itself changed angle. The tray comparison has only been visual, with no reference measurement.

Then write those as two separate observations. Check finger contact and spacer seating, not an assumed arm drift.

Any retained spacer from when pickup was reliable?

Reece's comparison is useful only if the old piece is still representative. A convenient undamaged sample can miss current size or surface variation. I would include actual current pieces, without treating either group as proof on its own.

I have current spacers available. I do not have an identified earlier sample. I will not label a loose piece from stores as our former reference.

Use the specified part and tooling requirements as the reference, then record what the current assembly shows. Photographs can explain the contact pattern but cannot by themselves establish every relevant dimension.

Also record which offsets were changed and why. Were they correcting a repeated direction, or different misses?

That distinction could save a lot of arguing about the arm.

I can recover the edits, but the reason notes are poor. Maintenance has the as-found inspection request. There is not enough evidence yet to call the fingers worn.

Please include any permitted cleaning or adjustment in the record when it happens. If the next comparison changes, knowing what was touched matters more than everybody agreeing that the setup now looks better.

And keep one person responsible for recording changes during that check.