The proposed tool seals on a thin aluminium enclosure panel, but the bench report starts with one panel already clear of the stack. Our job starts at the stack and ends in an assembly nest. I need separation, support and release covered before putting a staffing figure beside the FR5 proposal.
Ask who separated that sample. Then send a representative stack and the actual receiver details for a full comparison. Include how the system establishes one panel, and how the released panel sits afterwards. The person peeling sheets apart must not disappear just because the camera starts later.
Demonstrator separated it by hand. Supplier acknowledges the report only covers contact on one panel. They are proposing a stack trial with our samples.
Could manually separated presentation be a useful alternative? I would compare it if your orders are small, but include the person's preparation and replenishment time rather than treating it as free.
We will compare both. The assembly operator would do manual separation, and already covers inspection, so we are including that overlap in the observation.
What does the proposed extra-panel check show the operator when it cannot decide? I'd want that example in the handover, not only one green single-sheet indication.
Fiona's question belongs in the trial brief. Have the supplier show known single, double and uncertain cases with your panels, and define the response without assuming an uncertain grip can proceed.
Does the panel-support comparison use the same nest in both options? Otherwise you may be comparing a prepared single panel with an easier destination as well.
Same nest. First stack trial found a double pickup, which its proposed check detected. The single panel reached the nest with a raised corner, so support through release needs attention.
Have them compare the released panel condition before changing the nest to pull it flat. It matters whether the handling changed the panel or the current supports simply fail to let it settle.
Yes, using a deliberately ambiguous test sample; it held for review. On the corner issue, the accepted single panel was flat before handling and after removal, but did not settle on the proposed receiving supports.
Designer is reviewing the contact arrangement. Both feed options remain open, with their labour observations retained; no change to the panel specification or acceptance of the FR5 tool yet.