I'd lead with the preparation, otherwise people skim the pleasant bit and miss the condition that made it pleasant.

I started the saved job under supervision and watched the transfers. I didn't make the fixture, fit the tool or develop the sequence. My draft now says that before the impressions

Did the original review make a setup-time claim? That would need an explicit correction.

Sam, agreed if there's a number, but 'easy to get going' can imply the same thing. That phrase has cost me more optimism than a stopwatch ever has.

No time claim. I did call it easy to get going. That's the sentence I've removed. Thanks Omar, I hadn't noticed how much work those five words were hiding

I would replace it with what felt easy to you, rather than delete every useful impression. Starting a prepared job under supervision is still something you experienced; setting one up independently is something you did not test.

Fair enough, Nora; I was picturing another glowing review with the caveat buried below it, not asking Jane to write a complaint.

Keep the correction visible to people who already read the first version.

One other thing: did you see them recover anything? It's fine to leave that unanswered in the review. I'd look for that separately because a pleasant normal run tells me very little about the call I get when it stops.

No recovery during my visit. The edited review is up with a correction note, preparation credited and that limitation stated. The positive bit now describes my supervised operation only

Also kept the original comments underneath. Someone had asked about setting up alone, so I've replied there directly instead of expecting them to find the edit

That answers the reader who was actually relying on it. You can still be pleased with the visit.