our fr5 spacer leans toward the replacement finger

I have the removed finger. Replacement came from a mixed spares drawer, which is not exactly the confidence boost I wanted.

Does either finger have an identifiable reference, or are you comparing appearance only?

Both marked, different suffixes. We have asked tooling what each suffix means. The mounting holes looked the same, which was apparently enough at the time.

What did the full spacer seat look like before the grip, Beth? Still worth answering Isabel's other question while the references are checked.

Keep the removed finger and its backing parts together for the comparison; a correct-looking replacement face can still sit differently if the pieces behind it belong to another arrangement.

Luca's point matters. I would also retain the job versions around the replacement, rather than leave controls to infer which correction was made for which mechanical state

Omar, the retained spacer sits level in the fixture before contact. Luca, both backing arrangements are retained. Controls has the saved versions from before replacement and after each correction.

Was the same spacer used in the before-contact view and the leaning-grip view?

Yes, same marked spacer and occurrence.

Thanks. That makes the sequence much easier to follow.

Has tooling identified the suffix difference yet, Beth, or are the two references still awaiting an answer?

Tooling says the replacement uses a different backing thickness. It was fitted with the old backing part, so maintenance is reviewing the complete intended pair rather than just ordering another loose finger.

Then review the compensating edits with that intended assembly before a return trial. The physical mismatch explains a credible mechanism, but the existing edited pickup is now another changed variable

Will stores separate those suffixes now? The mixed drawer can recreate the same repair later.

Stores has separated them and labelled the full assembly references. Maintenance is rebuilding the intended pair. Return trial is not done.

Who is coordinating that return with controls? You have two owners whose work needs to meet at the same setup.

And please retain the useful first-contact comparison in the handover; it shows why matching bolt holes was not an adequate spare selection method.

Maintenance lead is coordinating both. Rebuild complete, reviewed job ready for the agreed supervised return check. Nothing to report from that check yet, so no fixed-it headline.

That is an appropriate stopping point for the update. The final record should identify the assembly and job actually checked together, not leave the dismantled mismatch as the only illustrated configuration