That makes the source worth investigating first, but I would still compare the held block afterwards. A source problem and a worn contact can coexist. Finding one shouldn't make the other half of your original complaint disappear.

Does the same identified block sit differently in another checked pocket?

Sara, yes. Maintenance found a loose support piece in the affected pocket, while the comparison pocket matches its reference. The fitted tool contacts and mountings check against the intended assembly. We have a specific source finding, not evidence of arm drift.

Record the condition before repair and the intended support arrangement. The fix should restore a defined seat, not simply hold the loose piece wherever the latest offset happens to like it.

Who will review the accumulated offsets before the return check? A repaired pocket could make the old compensations quite unhelpful, even with the correct tool fitted.

The programmer reviewed them against the restored pocket and selected the documented geometry-based revision for supervised checks. Repeated pickups on the repaired and comparison pockets now hold the identified blocks squarely, and the receiving-fixture checks meet the agreed requirement. Maintenance has signed the return for this job.

Has the support check reached the maintenance sheet, not only this repair note?

Sara's handover point is worth finishing. The separate source and held-block results are useful, Gabriel; that is a much better explanation for the next person than another saved pickup revision called improved.