I would inspect the intended tool contacts with the responsible technician too. Unequal contact can make a housing lean even when the tray hasn't moved. That is a possibility, not a diagnosis from your description.

Fair question Dinesh. We had only compared it by eye. Technician has now checked the tray references during the stopped inspection. No displacement found there. They did find two different-looking pads on the gripper.

Get their identities before ordering anything. Different-looking might mean a mismatched pair, or it might be the intended pair. What does the tool documentation show?

Is there a replacement record for either pad, and does it connect to when the point changes began?

Would the stores issue record help with that? It might identify what was supplied even if the maintenance note just says pad changed.

Who decides which drawing is current here? I'd sort that out before treating the one in the folder as the answer, especially if the people changing pads and the people editing pickup points have been working from different notes

Tool designer owns the drawing revision. Stores found an issue for one pad, and it matches the older reference. Maintenance is checking that against the fitted pair. I've saved the point versions, JonasArcher, rather than rolling anything back myself.

We once handed over a repair with the hardware correct and the compensating settings still undocumented. The next shift thought the strange settings were intentional. Keep the programmer in this review so they can assess those versions alongside the physical condition.

The designer should confirm the intended pair and contact arrangement. A matching stock code alone won't explain a tool that has been revised since the spare was bought.

Aisha, agreed. But a saved version isn't necessarily a known-good version. Don't let oldest become correct just because it predates the complaint.

We're not calling the old points good. Programmer has them for comparison, including the changes with no clear reason recorded. Designer confirms one fitted pad is from the previous arrangement. Replacement pair is being identified against the current drawing.

What happens to the remaining old spare in stores? Worth dealing with now, before someone helpfully fits it during the next shortage.

Has anyone defined the return checks after the tool work? I'd want to know which housing variations and tray changes they cover, not just whether the first pickup looks square.

Yes, the responsible technician and programmer have a reviewed check plan with the setter. Old spare is held apart pending its disposition. Correct pair is fitted, but the return checks aren't complete, so I'm not claiming the pad mismatch explains every miss.

Get the other shift to read the new spare instruction as well. They shouldn't need this whole conversation to recognise the right pair, and the drawing owner needs to hear if the instruction still sends them to an ambiguous shelf label

That is worth including in the handover, Felix. The technical checks and the readable spare instruction answer different problems; finishing one doesn't automatically finish the other.

First reviewed checks completed without the crooked grip recurring. More tray and product coverage remains. Thanks Will for asking about the spare identities, and Ella for the stores record idea. We've also corrected that shelf label with the drawing owner.

When the wider checks finish, keep their scope beside that result. The initial tray-reference observation should remain there too, rather than disappearing once the pad explanation looks convincing