Identity alone won't establish the pad test. Rebecca needs both, and a labelled introduction could precede unrelated handling footage.

Then specify a continuous view linking the identifiers, fitted pads, sample and receiving fixture. Close views can supplement it. They should not replace the link.

I sent a short list of those views, tied to the agreed task. Asked them to identify any part of it they cannot record. Current answer is still that the machine works.

What did the agreement say about the receiving fixture? If its identity is not defined, the seller could show clean release into an easier fixture and sincerely consider the request answered. Resolve that wording before accepting a new recording.

Aaron, that sounds like a possible gap, but Rebecca says agreed fixtures. I'd first ask whether the seller is using the supplied reference, not reopen the task as though nothing was specified.

Fixture drawing revision is in the agreement. Seller has now sent identifiable equipment views and admits the handling segment used a different fixture. They have offered a new recording with ours. Pad-set link still unanswered.

That answers my concern. I should have asked whether they followed your fixture reference, rather than assuming the reference was missing.

Would you accept a drawing-matched fixture they've made there, or must it be your supplied physical fixture? Their new offer needs to mean the same thing to both of you.

Drawing-matched is what we agreed. I have asked for its check record and confirmation that the fitted pads in the demonstration are the ones in our package. Not changed the original condition.

A check record can link the fixture to the drawing without proving handling. Keep watching for a hand seating the sample between pickup and release; that intervention would change what the sequence demonstrates.

Our old receiving check once missed exactly that. Operator straightened the part while the camera moved closer. We only caught it when someone asked who would do that after delivery. Ask for interventions to stay visible, including a failed attempt rather than an edited success.

Has the new recording arrived, or are these still promised views?

Arrived. Package, pad set and fixture are linked; fixture check uses our revision. During placement the operator nudges the housing into its seat before the hand leaves. I asked whether that intervention is required, rather than calling the whole clip useless.

Good question to put to them. Is unattended seating actually in your agreed demonstration scope? Visible help is important evidence, but whether it defeats the agreement depends on what was specified.

It is. The agreed sequence ends with the housing seated without manual positioning. Seller confirms their shown setup needed the nudge and proposes a revised pad shape. I haven't approved that change or the demonstration.

Then ask what the pad change affects beyond that one placement, including release and the supplied spare arrangement. A corrected shape is a proposal until it has an identified revision and agreed checks.

At least you can now decide against a specific shortfall; is your purchasing contact willing to consider their revised pads?

Purchasing will consider a documented revision, not release shipment on the promise. Jonas, thanks for the spare-set point. We have asked whether the replacement proposal covers the spare pads too; that wasn't in their offer.