No comparable count. My notes say fewer awkward pickups but do not give an attempt total. I cannot turn that into a success percentage.

The trays have identifiers and I recorded the replacement. I did not record whether it was fully seated at the miss. The part was my focus.

Who changed the tray? The usual loader or the person setting up the trial?

I wouldn't write tray replacement caused failure, even with the identity. It happened afterwards, which is worth reporting, but seating, presentation and the pickup itself haven't been separated.

Jamie, agreed. I was trying to preserve a cheap comparison, not nominate the replacement as faulty. An identity is something Anna can keep without buying another locator.

Both points fit: identifiable trays, unknown cause. No need to choose between them.

Victor, I changed it myself. That limits what I can say about the normal loading routine too. I have put the trial operator and the missing seating observation in the report.

Then include the usual loader in the next reviewed comparison. Don't hide their preparation time.

And keep a next comparison separate from an achieved result. I've watched proposed checks drift into conclusion paragraphs just because everyone agreed they were sensible.

The revised conclusion now says the observed pickups appeared more consistent, with the replacement-tray miss and small trial scope alongside it. The comparison is proposed, not completed.