I have the prepayment confirmation referring to our drawing and the different delivered identifier. Our unpacking photographs also show the interface as received, with no tooling installed.

@SamBell0681 Provide those records together and request an interface drawing specific to the configuration you received. Keeping the tooling off preserves the original condition while its compatibility is assessed.

Can I describe this as the wrong revision based on the suffix alone? I'd prefer not to make the dispute depend on an unverified interpretation of the identifier.

Call it a configuration discrepancy. Quote both identifiers and show the visible interface difference. That gives them two concrete things to explain

A matching interface drawing would establish that the delivered configuration is compatible with your fixture. Request that document to support the seller's equivalence claim.

@SamBennett0768 Mechanical fit isn't the whole compatibility question. A drawing can't settle every connection or application requirement.

I overstated what that document would establish. The drawing can help resolve physical fit, while the remaining compatibility questions need assessment against your intended configuration and application.

@SamBennett0768 Is this possibly only a labelling change, despite the visible difference in the interface?

@HazelArcher0397 The suffix's meaning hasn't been established. Whatever its explanation, the seller still needs to account for the visible difference from the confirmed interface drawing.

That's the point I keep coming back to. I designed around their confirmed interface, not around a letter on a sticker.

I've accepted the delivered interface after a completed configuration comparison and qualified review against our stated fixture requirements. That resolves this discrepancy for us, with installation checks still required.

Your stated fixture requirements now have supporting review, and you've kept the outstanding installation work clear.