Mantis style protectors traditionally would sit slightly below the playfield surface.. hence why they were preferred as interfering less with the hole/shot compared to cliffy style protectors that were 'over the edge'.

The scoop takes damage as the balls bounce off the back of the scoop and on games like AFM.. from balls coming in from the side angles and hitting the opposite edge of the hole. You don't need the protector above or flush with the PF. The thickness of the metal itself allows it to sit that dimension under the edge and still prevent a hit against the edge of the PF.

I tried looking for whatever 'unboxing' he was referencing but couldn't find it. Have a link?

I was responding to the idea the protectors need to be flush or above the PF. They aren't there to be an artificial edge.. they are there to prevent being smashed side to side... and hence why the protector still works from inside the hole vs the cliffy design which is a 'wrap' effect. But the thinner cliffy will also deform easier allowing hits to transfer to the material behind it. They each have their pros/cons.

so what took them so long then?? and why was MMR such a trainwreck of a project in communications, expectations, and execution? Rick was a contributor.. but once it came out he really wasn't driving.. don't know why CGC didn't rescue it with the attitude they are showing now.

Meh... the big red flags were not how they dealt with customers, but how they sourced and primed Stern to do assembly. It really read like amauters feeding the pros.. and the pros wouldn't compromise their process.. hence a lot of the delays start/stops. Never mind the software aborts and timelines. Now, to see them ramp up a line (with what should be largely new help..) is polar opposite. Either Stern was dicking them around.. or something significant changed in the project management side in CGC.