@FarahAllen0330 We watched a batch. Preparation took longer than transfer. My estimate had basically made that work disappear by wishing.

Build a capped pilot around the complete workflow. Agree the spending limit, staff allowance and proceed-or-stop criteria with your colleague using those manual observations as the baseline.

Count my fixture time too? I'd enjoy it, but it's extra work.

On our separate project, we included that time. The design was enjoyable, but our normal workload still needed doing. The estimate became less cheerful.

Multiply the manual minutes eliminated by the labour rate for a simple saving figure, then compare that with what the pilot costs.

The calculation assumes the released time removes a real expense. Small gaps may increase capacity without reducing paid hours, so presenting all of that time as cash savings could recreate the dispute.

@JasperAli0203 You're right; my wording turned released time into cash too easily. Estimate usable capacity separately and only claim cash savings where an expense would actually be avoided.

Inspection work is waiting. Whether it fits those gaps, I haven't checked. So that benefit's still an assumption.

Don't you need the whole cell installed to find that out?

@OmarBrown0926 A representative supervised trial can show when attention is needed and how long the gaps are. It won't prove the full deployment benefit, but it can challenge the assumption.

Our pilot needed frequent replenishment, so the operator couldn't leave for the task we'd imagined. The transfer worked; our staffing idea didn't.

The manual observations have improved the proposal, but the pilot's spending and staff limits aren't agreed. We haven't committed to equipment.

@WillChan1096 The baseline helps, but those limits still matter before a commitment. That's a clear partial result.