@MinaBaker0511 Yes. Their prepayment reply references our drawing, and the delivered identifier differs. My unpacking photos show the interface difference before we've fitted anything.

Send that comparison and ask for the applicable interface drawing for the delivered configuration. Leave the tooling unfitted while compatibility is checked.

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.

@BethAdams0150 A configuration discrepancy is a fair description. State the agreed and delivered identifiers along with the visible interface difference, so the seller can address both directly.

If the interface drawing matches your fixture, that would establish compatibility. Ask them to supply it rather than repeat 'equivalent'.

@MinaBaker0511 The interface drawing could address physical fit, but it wouldn't by itself establish compatibility for all connections and application requirements.

You're right; I made the drawing do too much work. It can address the visible fit issue. The rest needs a configuration review against your requirements.

@MinaBaker0511 Could they just have changed the label? Or does the different-looking interface rule that out?

@NinaBarnes0588 We don't know what the suffix signifies. But your visible interface mismatch still needs an explanation, even if the label change turns out to be harmless.

My concern is the interface they confirmed for our fixture design. Interpreting the identification suffix is secondary to establishing whether the supplied arrangement matches that agreement.

On my own fixture job, I nearly made an adapter before getting the correct drawing. Waiting for it saved me from designing around an assumption.

I can see the temptation to design around it. Would discussing a possible adapter complicate how I describe the original delivery discrepancy?

An adapter proposal doesn't have to settle the discrepancy. Make the original mismatch clear and request an explanation of the proposed changes, their assessment, and the arrangement under which they'd be supplied.

@OmarBrown0926 A possible modification wouldn't establish that the delivered configuration matched the original order. Keep those claims distinct in the discussion.

I'd consider a suitable proposal once the seller identifies the differences. I don't want a possible workaround to obscure the configuration discrepancy.

@MinaBaker0511 Is there any useful inspection available while the tooling stays uninstalled?

A reviewer may use photographs and accessible external measurements. Those should be compared with the applicable drawing, without disassembly or forcing the tooling onto an uncertain interface.

@MinaBaker0511 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.

That gives your acceptance a defined scope. The remaining installation checks still matter.