Our unnamed seller in China confirmed a Fairino FR10 configuration using our fixture drawing before purchase.
I received an arm with a different label suffix and a visibly different interface around the fixture alignment adapter.
The seller's equivalence assurance comes without a comparison.
Our tooling remains unfitted after 54 days awaiting clarification.
I need this for placing molded parts in nests.
@EllaBennett0729 Do you've the seller's confirmation, delivered identification label, and fixture drawing available together? Comparing those would identify the discrepancy without assuming what the suffix means.
@KaiBennett0715 I've the prepayment confirmation referring to our drawing and the different delivered identifier. Our unpacking photographs also show the interface as received, with no tooling installed.
@EllaBennett0729 Send that comparison and ask for the applicable interface drawing for the delivered configuration. Leave the tooling unfitted while compatibility is checked.
@KaiBennett0715 Can I describe this as the wrong revision based on the suffix alone? I'd prefer not to make the dispute depend on an unverified interpretation of the identifier.
@LeoChan1058 A matching interface drawing would establish that the delivered configuration is compatible with your fixture. Request that document to support the seller's equivalence claim.
@KaiBennett0715 The interface drawing could address physical fit, but it wouldn't by itself establish compatibility for all connections and application requirements.
@ElenaBennett0775 I overstated what that document would establish. The drawing can help resolve physical fit, while the remaining compatibility questions need assessment against your intended configuration and application.
@KaiBennett0715 I still can't substantiate the seller's equivalence assurance against the confirmed interface. Our tooling remains off while that discrepancy is unresolved.