Get the fitted finger and pad references beside their drawings. A photograph of worn contacts is more useful when we know what shape they were meant to have... and whether those are the intended parts.

Don't let the unchanged-looking tray become the innocent party by default. I'd include the sleeve seating and locator condition, because otherwise every crooked grip is going to be a gripper story

And identify the sleeves used in the comparison. Different parts can make a repeated setup check look inconsistent, or conceal that it is.

Backups and change notes retained. Maintenance found uneven contact impressions, but haven't compared the fitted pads to their drawing yet. I've asked for that and the source seating check together. No further pickup edits.

Uneven impressions are worth following, though they can be a consequence of arriving crooked as well as a cause. Keep the observation order in the report

Can the same identified sleeve be seated repeatedly in the static check? Then compare other sleeves separately. I mean with the setup made suitable for inspection, not repeated robot picks to see what falls out.

Has anyone checked whether the pad pair is actually the same revision on both sides?

Also compare mounting and fastening condition through maintenance, before assuming the contact faces alone explain it.

The two fitted pads have different drawing references. Stores records show one was replaced during a previous maintenance job. Tooling is checking the pair; I don't yet know whether the difference is permitted.

That needs the assembly requirement, not simply matching numbers. Some legitimate pairs are handed parts. Can tooling identify what combination this job specifies?

Yes, thanks Jo. I was about to call it a mixed-pair fault, which would be jumping ahead of the drawing again

Tooling confirmed that the replacement belongs to an earlier contact geometry and isn't the specified partner. They have quarantined that pad and arranged the correct one. The static seating comparison didn't find a tray shift in the inspected setup.

So the incorrect pad combination is established; the tray check is limited to that setup. I'd retain both findings without making either account for every old miss

What will happen to the accumulated pickup changes after the pad is corrected? They may have been compensating for that geometry.

Have the integrator review those versions. Do not just restore the oldest one because it predates the complaint.

Correct pad fitted by maintenance and contacts checked. Integrator selected a reviewed program baseline after comparing the edits. The first supervised assessment has square seating again, but we haven't done the tray changeover assessment yet.

Is the allowed pad combination now in the maintenance handover? That is how the next replacement avoids reopening the same problem.

Yes, with the drawing references and the rejected combination recorded in stores too. Thanks Hazel for asking about the pair; it sent us to the replacement record instead of another round of teaching. Leaving the changeover check outstanding here.