One quotation includes a drawing. Other gives a gripper model and says custom fingers. Neither locates the held housing's centre of gravity in the assembly.

Those are different levels of definition. I would not ask you to choose between their final totals until the second supplier has described what custom fingers means for this housing. Even a complete mass value is not enough if the geometry behind it can still change.

Hazel, does the first drawing identify the adapter and service fittings as well as the fingers? I'm asking because a drawing can look much more complete than a model name without actually containing the full load you asked them to assess.

Adapter shown but no fittings. I marked those omissions and the missing housing location on the drawing. First supplier agrees its original load statement was incomplete.

And ask who owns the final tool data after commissioning. The person replacing a finger needs the approved reference, not a souvenir of the quotation stage.

Caleb, yes. Link the assessment to the actual assembly revision. A later spare or different finger length needs review against that definition, not an assumption that the robot model stayed the same so nothing important changed.

First supplier returned the complete candidate and withdrew the earlier part-only calculation. Second has not defined its fingers yet. We are keeping selection open instead of treating the lower number as comparable.

What conclusion does the revised assessment actually reach for that first candidate? Its arrival is useful progress, but we still haven't heard whether the proposed operating conditions were accepted or need changing.

And whether any conditions on that answer are reflected in the cycle estimate. I have seen a cautious technical answer and an unchanged sales cycle time coexist rather comfortably in separate attachments.