The delivered FR10 suffix and flange-adapter interface differ from the configuration confirmed against our fixture drawing; after 26 days without a comparison, which dimensions should I ask the China seller to reconcile before our tooling is fitted?
Can your toolmaker identify the attachment features the confirmed assembly depends on? I would use that as the comparison request, including register, fastening and interface arrangement, rather than asking the seller to explain a suffix in isolation.
Have you recorded the delivered adapter's own identification and measured differences? A different exterior may matter, but it does not tell us which of those attachment features has changed.
Yes, Omar. Yasmin's comparison needs the complete assembly as well as the attachment dimensions. A matching bolt circle would not settle tool clearance, connection access or the supported load arrangement.
Inspection found the attachment features match, but the delivered adapter body projects farther behind the flange; that is the difference our photographs showed.
Then you have a specific geometry difference to assess. Does the toolmaker's combined model include that rear projection and the actual connection fittings?
Preserve both adapter revisions in the comparison. If the delivered one proves suitable, record what was checked and approve that exact substitution; do not relabel it as identical merely because no change to your tooling is needed.
Louis, the combined model now includes the measured body and fittings, and our integrator has checked access and the supported assembly; the extra projection clears this fixture and the connection service space.
We accepted the identified delivered adapter as a documented substitution after that review, with the seller's configuration record corrected; Lin, your distinction helped us close the mismatch without pretending the two bodies are identical.