The supplier's bench report establishes a seal on one coated steel panel, which is useful, but our panels arrive stacked. I asked how the proposed UR5e tool confirms it has only one and supports it through placement. The answer sent me back to the same seal reading.
I want a comparison using the actual stack and receiving fixture before we choose the tool. What should happen to a doubtful pickup needs explaining as well; the operator cannot be the missing paragraph in the report.
Ask the integrator to define separation, single-panel confirmation, supported transfer and release as distinct requirements, with an agreed hold and recovery for uncertain quantity rather than interpreting the seal alone as proof of one panel.
Supplier confirms the test sheet was placed alone on the bench. Revised trial scope now starts from our stack and includes a proposed thickness check. No single-panel result from the original report.
Good. What does the proposed thickness check do with a borderline reading? I'd rather see its uncertain case than twenty videos where somebody has kindly ensured there is one sheet to find.
Integrator proposes holding the attempt for a named operator review. They haven't shown where the held panel or panels remain during that review. I've asked them to include it.
Include support there as well as during movement. A defined indication is only part of the arrangement; the person responding needs a supported load and suitable access under the agreed recovery plan.
On the agreed sample set it distinguished the known single and double examples. One curled edge sample remained uncertain and went to the proposed hold. That part was outside our accepted incoming range.
Keep the uncertain sample and its hold response in the results, while distinguishing it from the accepted incoming range used to assess normal handling.
Did the accepted single panels stay supported through release into your fixture? The quantity check result does not answer the handling question you started with.
One accepted single panel lifted at a corner after release. Receiver designer has the marked example and is revising support. We are not selecting the tool from the quantity-check result alone.
Has the receiver revision been tried with that panel and the normal sample range? I'd like to hear whether the corner stays down without creating another snag when the tool withdraws.