@RachelBrooks0870 The exterior cylinder is labelled visible on the drawing. We've only got phone photos in workshop lighting, with no link to the customer's viewing procedure.

Get the viewing procedure, then compare handled and untouched samples using it. Include a softer pad as one candidate for reducing the marks.

@RachelBrooks0870 Softer pads can hold grit and drag on release. Your suggestion could sound like material softness is the main thing to optimise.

@LucaAllen0265 You're right about the emphasis. The comparison needs contact geometry, representative contamination and release behaviour too. A softer pad doesn't get a presumed advantage.

@RachelBrooks0870 Would a marked sample and an untouched one from the same batch be enough to avoid blaming the gripper for incoming scratches?

@AmaraBrooks0861 That helps, and photograph each sample before contact too. Separate pieces from one batch can still arrive with different marks.

If lighting changes whether you can see a mark, which result counts?

Use the customer's agreed procedure for acceptance. Other lighting can reveal clues about contact, without becoming a different unofficial pass-or-fail test.

I found the customer's lighting and viewing procedure in the quality pack. Our phone photos don't match it, so that procedure will govern the comparison.

@AmaraBrooks0861 On a separate finished-sleeve job, an edge imprint mattered more than the broad contact haze. The accepted viewing method stopped us arguing over dramatic photos.

There's a repeated line at the finger edge on our samples too. It hasn't been checked using the required lighting, so I'm treating it as something to investigate.

Show the repeated line against the contact edge in the drawing. Have the supplier explain the support shape and how contact changes during release.

Broader contact isn't automatically better either. It still needs to locate and retain the part, and it might cover an area the customer inspects.

@LucaAllen0265 Agreed. The tooling specialist needs to check revised geometry for cosmetic contact, retention and release together. Good-looking samples don't establish handling suitability.

@RachelBrooks0870 Could a non-visible surface take the support instead?

One end area isn't marked cosmetic, although the drawing doesn't authorise supporting there. I'll check with the designer before treating it as available contact space.

The comparison method is clear now: customer appearance criteria plus handling assessment. My selection-planning question is answered; the gripper choice will depend on those results.

That gives the selection review a clear basis while leaving the actual contact choice dependent on the comparison.