For another carton variant in our UR5e planning, the shared support-and-withdrawal section is ready but packaging's comment belongs to the first variant; the outside sizes match and the packed supports do not, so what should remain separate before either pattern reaches the operator guide?
the other carton variant needs its own support answer
RebeccaArcher0430 · 2025年12月18日 17:59 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
7 条回复
Keep each packed construction and its required support identified on its own reviewed section. The same outside dimensions do not establish the same bearing arrangement or approve either variant's interaction with the fingers.
14分Both constructions are identified. Packaging has only assessed the first one, and the second puts a required support over a withdrawal gap. Tooling has been asked to compare that actual difference.
6分Does the second variant need a different pattern or tool, or is that still the unanswered comparison?
14分Still unanswered, Mina; I've left both as possible outcomes rather than assume a tool adjustment will make the first pattern reusable
4分Then keep changeover and partial-order handling visible for either proposed outcome. If the eventual arrangement differs, the operator needs an identified variant and method, not one generic diagram with an exception explained verbally.
5分Who owns keeping that operator guide aligned when packaging or tooling revises one variant?
8分Integrator owns the combined guide with dispatch review; it will carry the relevant variant and tooling revisions, but no second-variant method is approved yet
15分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .