Quality has accepted and rejected surface examples now. There are two marks: short contact patches after holding, then a continuous ring after placement. Ring is rejected. Patches need closer comparison.

Give the receiver designer that ring location with the bezel identity, because the new pads will not remove a separate contact at placement.

Are the short patches actually damage, or could quality accept them? I'd rather know that before choosing softer material just because its first photograph looks kinder.

And compare retention and release with the proposed material. A surface improvement is useful, but it still has to leave the bezel in the receiving tray correctly.

Patches accepted under the agreed finish requirement. Supplier's softer-pad sample has less visible contact, but it sticks briefly at release. Existing pad releases cleanly in that comparison.

Then why keep the softer pad as the favourite? It is solving an accepted appearance difference and has introduced another handling question.

Aisha, I wouldn't choose it yet either, but it may still have another benefit. Oliver, did the supplier propose softer pads only for these marks, or for some other agreed part variation too?

Only for the marks. No other benefit claimed for our job. I've taken it off the preferred option while they explain the sticking sample.

What did the receiver inspection find at the ring location?

Keep that sticking attempt identified as well. If the supplier returns another demonstration, it should address the same failure rather than quietly use a different bezel.

Receiver insert has a raised circular edge at the contact height. Designer says it doesn't match the intended insert drawing and is arranging a correctly made sample. The softer-pad failure stays in the comparison.

That gives the ring a specific contact to investigate. Does the replacement insert preserve the intended location, or are they clearing the ring by making the whole nest loose?

Preserves the locating surfaces. The raised edge is outside those intended contacts. Quality and tooling will compare the replacement with the same bezel samples.

Include whoever normally exchanges the receiver. I watched a good sample fixture become a bad production habit because its designer always seated the removable insert with a little twist that never made it into the instruction. Not saying yours needs that trick. Quite the opposite: find out whether it seats and locates properly when someone follows the intended changeover, before the careful designer's result becomes everybody else's promise.

Chloe's changeover check belongs with the surface comparison, since the installed contact position is what you are trying to repeat.

Replacement insert checked with the normal changer. It locates as intended. Retained bezels no longer pick up the rejected ring through placement and release with the existing pads.

Did that include the agreed normal bezel variation, not only the part that showed the original ring?

And what's the disposition of the old insert? It should not become the spare that restores the original problem.

Normal sample range included, Dinesh. Old insert is isolated for the tooling return, Aisha. We're retaining the existing pad candidate for the wider trial; softer pads aren't being ordered. Thanks for making us inspect the receiving contact.