A demonstration with nobody's order number

The agreement specifies our sample type and the pad arrangement. Neither is visible in the clip. I've sent those two omissions back beside the relevant agreement section.

Include the package identifiers too, so a better close-up can be tied to your order.

They supplied identifier photos separately. I still cannot tell whether the moving arm in the clip is that equipment, or whether the agreed pads were fitted for the run.

Our demo record started with the equipment identifiers, then showed the tool and samples before the run. It wasn't fancy. The useful part was being able to follow the same setup through the record, including an intervention when a part didn't release.

Ask for that continuity, with the agreed test steps visible rather than only a successful movement montage.

Give that reviewer a checklist drawn from the agreement. Missing evidence should remain an unanswered item.

Keep demonstration acceptance separate from commissioning at your site. The recording can document the agreed supplier test without establishing every aspect of the installed application.

Yes. Approve only the test scope the evidence actually covers.

Our tooling lead owns the review. The new request lists identity, pad arrangement, sample transfer, release and interventions from the agreement. It also states which site checks remain outside this demonstration.

A replacement recording links the labelled package to the tool and transfer sequence. Release is obscured behind the tray wall, so that item is still unanswered. Better evidence, but the review is not complete.

Request a view that exposes release without changing the agreed setup. That is now a specific remaining gap.