I can identify the present blocks and tray, not the parts used for the older edits; I'll keep that limit in the inspection request.

Record seating before closure through the approved observation arrangement. Then the isolated inspection can compare the source contacts, block condition, fingers and attachments against the intended setup.

Keep tray identity distinct from appearance. A matching outside shape can hide a different insert or locating condition.

The current observation shows blocks sitting square before closure, then tipping at first finger contact; maintenance has the identified samples and tool isolated for inspection.

Does the tipping follow the same finger on each of those samples?

That would narrow the inspection, Louis, though it would not prove wear; contact geometry or attachment position could produce the same pattern.

Same contact side in the recorded examples; maintenance found the replacement finger does not match the specified contact profile, and is checking its part reference rather than dressing it to fit.

Check when it was fitted against the edit history. The mismatch may explain the current behaviour without accounting for every earlier adjustment.

And keep the supplied finger reference in stores, marked unsuitable for this setup. Otherwise another replacement can reproduce the same disagreement.

Has the correct contact been fitted and the selected program reviewed for the comparison, or are those still next steps?

Correct finger fitted, wrong one segregated, program review complete; controlled handling verification is arranged but not done, and the older unlabelled pickup edits remain unexplained.