Same lot, not the same identified sleeves. We have retained the samples, but I cannot claim the existing images locate when any mark appeared. Quality will choose the viewing method and references.

Then don't let the softer-pad offer become the assumed answer while that is happening; the broad band and fine line might not even have the same cause.

Include the person's normal loading and unloading in the comparison, because a pad change is only useful within the job somebody will actually run.

That combined scope is with our integrator now. Quality accepted the broad band on an incoming reference and rejected the fine line on another sleeve. The supplier has been told not to treat every band in the photographs as damage.

Does the proposed pad set have an actual assembly reference yet?

And don't quietly change the grip depth for the soft set without showing it, because that could alter the comparison as much as the material.

It has a reference, David. Jamie Brooks, both candidates use the agreed held position. Their contact areas differ, and the integrator has the complete assemblies for assessment rather than a claim about softness alone.

Have you included pad replacement and cleaning in the handover scope for whichever candidate is retained? Those tasks can differ even when both tools move the same sleeve.

Rosa, yes, but I'd get the actual handling result first before drafting a maintenance lesson for a set they may reject.

Agreed on the lesson; I meant knowing whether the candidate adds a task or consumable before purchasing compares its cost.

The trial brief includes those differences. Existing pads leave the fine unacceptable contact line on the identified checked sleeves. The proposed set has not left that line in its initial holding comparison; receiving release still needs the full check.

So keep the proposed set as a candidate. Initial hold is useful, but a sleeve that sticks during release can lose the finish you just protected.

Has the full check used the ordinary sleeve variation selected by quality, rather than only the easiest retained example?

Yes. The selected range went through normal loading, holding and release with the proposed set. Quality found no new unacceptable marks under its agreed method. Integrator has the handling results for its final candidate review.

What did the maintenance comparison add to the cost?

Identified replacement contacts and their cleaning task, both priced. Maintenance has the supplier's applicable instructions and accepts the task. It is a dearer contact set, but no extra sleeve preparation is assumed.

Has the responsible reviewer accepted the complete candidate now? The appearance result alone should not be carrying the purchase decision.

Integrator accepted it for the next integration stage, with the defined assembly, handling results and maintenance scope. We selected that pad arrangement. Thank you, Anil; combining the checks stopped us buying from two unrelated demonstrations.