Our plastic-sleeve pickups looked more consistent after I added a tray locator. Then a replacement tray missed. I want the report to show both observations without calling that small trial a proven fix.
The FR10 locator improvement did not survive every tray change
SaraChen1157 · 2026年6月21日 07:25 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
8 条回复
回复 SaraChen1157
Put the replacement-tray miss in the main result, not an exception at the bottom. You observed improvement on some supervised runs. That doesn't establish the locator works across the trays you'll actually use.
14分回复 SaraChen1157
Do you know whether the replacement seated differently, Sara? Not asking you to explain the miss yet. Just whether anybody recorded what the tray was doing when it happened.
8分Henry, useful question, though even a seating difference would still need connecting to the missed pickup. I've seen reports leap from new observation to new cause almost in the same sentence.
21分回复 SaraChen1157
No seating observation from the miss, Henry. I watched the sleeve. Daniel, I've separated observed pickup behaviour from the possible explanation in the draft.
7分回复 SaraChen1157
Then leave seating unknown. You can plan to observe it in a reviewed comparison without writing that the tray moved. Did the original tray return after the replacement?
8分It didn't. That's another missing comparison, not evidence against the replacement tray. Thanks for asking it that way; my first draft sounded much more certain.
15分回复 SaraChen1157
That gives you a sensible next study: identified trays and seating observations, with comparable pickup conditions. Keep counts if you're going to claim a rate change; your current qualitative wording doesn't pretend you have them.
20分And keep the trial size in plain sight. A few runs are still worth reporting. They just don't owe anyone a reliability figure.
14分