Which load cases belong in our FR10 housing-tool comparison?

Only the first proposal identifies the fingers. The second says extended set without a drawing reference. I have asked for that identity before the comparison proceeds.

Include the tool after releasing the housing too. It still has to open and withdraw from the nest, and the proposed return movement may not be the same as the loaded approach

Toby, would that need its own drawing or a state in the same sequence?

Leah, what changed between the two proposals besides finger length? Or is that still hidden by the unidentified set?

Liam, either can work if the assembly and state remain unambiguous. I would rather see one readable sequence than separate attractive images which quietly use different adapters

Harish, the first grips outside the housing; the second proposes entering its opening. They also place it at different depths in the inspection nest. We have not accepted either change to the nest interface.

Then agree the placement requirement before comparing their load results. Two valid assessments could still describe different jobs, and one may leave the housing somewhere inspection cannot use it.

Does inspection accept either proposed depth, Leah?

Inspection accepts the outside-grip proposal's seating position. The internal proposal leaves the housing above its required support. Supplier says it can revise the fingers to release lower.

Make the revised tool the basis of that supplier's assessment. I once received replacement contacts under an old kit description after the contact geometry had changed. The installed tool was fine; the spare list was describing its predecessor. It took an unnecessary stoppage to make everyone look at the individual references. Your second supplier is already proposing a different reach into the housing, so this is a good time to insist the drawing, assessment and eventual spare list all describe the same thing

Thank you, Toby. The supplier has now issued a revised assembly reference rather than continuing to call both versions extended set. The release sequence is still missing the open-finger view inside our nest.

That missing view sounds more urgent than refining the weight total.

They can do both, Liam. Geometry is needed for the load assessment as well as clearance, so I would not split this into unrelated drawing and weighing errands.

Has the first supplier's complete assembly information reached the integrator, including those previously omitted fittings?

Henry's right. The useful deliverable is a consistent assembly and its cases, not a bag of numbers somebody else has to recognise later

Fair enough. I meant don't buy before seeing the release.

Harish, yes: first assembly is with the integrator, including fittings and the loaded and released cases. The second supplier has finally shown its open fingers; they overlap a locating feature during withdrawal.

Keep that result attached to the second revision. If another finger shape is offered, it needs the same checks rather than inheriting the first version's assessment.