Have tooling identify the actual locating and mating features on that comparison, because a general robot description won't answer whether your fixture meets the delivered adapter as intended

Hold is recorded. Toolmaker marked the shoulder and locating face differences; seller has those beside the confirmed drawing.

Can the seller supply the as-delivered adapter drawing before anybody proposes remachining your tooling, so the comparison starts with identified geometry rather than an expensive trial fit?

Who owns the combined decision if the robot package and your fixture came from different people? Both could reply within their own scope and leave you with nobody accepting the assembled arrangement.

Include the program and setup assumptions that depend on the interface too. A changed stand-off can reach beyond whether two faces mate, so a purely mechanical comparison may not cover every affected part of the handover.

Reece, is the apparent stand-off change measured yet? Omar is right to raise dependencies, but I would label the geometry difference as observed until the drawing or measurement establishes its size.

Not measured yet. Integrator owns the combined review. I've requested the delivered drawing; no remachining agreed.

Keep the observations and confirmed dimensions in separate columns when it arrives, so the technical review can see exactly which uncertainty the new document answers.

Delivered drawing received. Shoulder differs from the confirmed assembly; toolmaker found it conflicts with our existing locating recess.

That gives the fixture review an identified mismatch; ask for the agreed adapter as one option before assuming your existing tooling must absorb the change

And price responsibility, not only geometry. Supply of the agreed part and a redesign proposal have different work, timing and acceptance questions. No reason for you to choose the second by default.

Does the proposed resolution include updating the handover, or would the next maintainer still receive the drawing you originally ordered against?

Seller offers the agreed adapter, availability unconfirmed. Integrator will review its complete arrangement when identified; original delivered interface remains unaccepted.

Thanks for coming back with the mismatch, Reece. Keep the offer separate from receipt and acceptance; it answers which route the seller proposes, not when your tooling can be fitted.

Once that part is available, the integrator can close the affected setup and program assumptions against its identified assembly. The suffix question should remain a separate record if it still lacks an explanation.