I have the original tray identity and a short run record, but no pickup measurements. The replacement is identified too. So I can report the observed successful runs and the miss, not claim a measured improvement in accuracy.

Did the replacement meet the same locating features? I've seen tray names stay the same while the underside changed.

And was the replacement selected through the ordinary changeover process, or handed to the demonstrator as a special trial item?

Ordinary changeover, not a demonstration tray. Maintenance compared the underside and locating contacts and didn't find a mismatch. We did find that the replacement arrived loaded in the opposite orientation, which I hadn't recorded at the time of the miss.

Does the job distinguish those loading orientations, or is there only one intended orientation? I'd settle that before the report treats reversing the tray as an acceptable correction.

Also don't let no locating mismatch found become locator proved correct. Your useful new fact is about presentation; it hasn't supplied the missing pickup measurements retrospectively.

Only one loading orientation is intended. The tray marking was on the side hidden once loaded, and our changeover sheet didn't show it. The owner has approved a visible orientation reference and updated that sheet, with no taught-point changes.

Will the relief operator try the revised identification during the supervised handover, rather than only the person who already knows it?

That would help, but a visible mark isn't evidence about every pocket. Keep the handling check distinct from recognising which way the tray goes.

The supervised handover is booked but hasn't happened. My shared note now describes the limited locator result, the replacement miss and the discovered orientation omission. It doesn't call the tray family validated. David, that was the wording I needed permission to be comfortable with, thanks.