Versions saved. It seems to lean during grip; maintenance is comparing identified sleeves before and after contact.

Record the sleeve and fitted-contact references too. A changed job name or family label does not establish which pieces were present when the first offset was added.

Are there differences among the sleeves which look identical from above? I would give the comparison pieces an identity the operator can preserve after taking them out of their labelled boxes, rather than asking maintenance to remember which shiny-looking one behaved differently.

Sara's point could matter even with a sound tool, though I'd leave wear in the inspection scope until the assembly has actually been checked.

Two sleeve variants share the outer size. The thinner-wall variant leans during gripping; both sit square beforehand.

Is that thinner wall within its own part requirement, and is that variant included in the accepted handling setup? Otherwise the same observation could be mislabelled as defective stock or as a tool fault.

Who confirmed which variant reached this job, Pavel, rather than assuming the outer size meant the boxes were interchangeable?

Quality confirms both variants conform. Stores trace shows both reached the station; tooling approval names only the thicker-wall variant.

Then more grip pressure is not the answer to the paperwork gap. You have a variant outside the assessed handling scope. Keep it separate while tooling decides what that thinner sleeve actually needs.

The operator needs a usable distinction at the station, not a lesson saying they should have noticed the wall thickness. If both arrived under a shared description, fix the issue and selection information before the next delivery.

And don't let a corrected label stand in for an assessment of the thinner sleeve.

We've separated the variants and corrected issue references. Thinner sleeves remain outside this job pending tooling assessment; maintenance found the assembled tool within its inspection limits.

Has the accepted variant been checked through the complete transfer with the appropriate program version? The inspection finding and stock separation do not establish whether the accumulated corrections remain suitable.

Finn's station point is worth testing with the covering operator. Ask them to identify what arrived and which job is allowed, using the revised information without its author standing beside them. That can expose a missing reference before anyone turns it into another instruction to be more careful.

Keep the incomplete thinner-variant assessment in that walkthrough too. Excluded from this job is not the same as rejected by quality.

Theo, the thicker variant passed the authorised full-transfer checks with its restored approved point version. The covering operator also distinguished conforming-but-unassessed thin sleeves from rejected parts using the revised issue information.

That gives you a verified result for the accepted scope. Keep the thin-wall observation and its pending assessment separate; the tool being sound does not establish suitability for a second variant.

The original thick-sleeve job is released. Thin sleeves stay held for the separate handling decision. Thanks, Sara and Finn, for making the station information part of the repair rather than an afterthought.

Did the issue history show whether the mixture of variants changed as the pickup edits accumulated, or only establish that both were present? That would help the stores follow-up without changing the verified result for the thick one.