I generally understand your statement. The key technology you are involved in is a kind of test equipment that can automatically leave the tested part after getting the test results, right? In this case, I suggest that you write the requirements of claim 1 as product requirements, and put forward the protection method of testing with this equipment in the parallel independent claims, so that the protection scope is wider.
When writing the claim, unless the compound is patented, it is generally not allowed to be summarized by functionality. This is obviously a mechanical patent, so don't consider the function generalization. My suggestion is: first of all, you should calm down and analyze how B detects A, according to what and in what way, and then write this technical process in an easy-to-understand way to replace the obviously unclear verb restriction of "detection". Similarly, how does B control C? Signal transmission? Mechanical connection? Gear rotation? Don't be afraid of trouble, express this technical way accurately instead of the word "control". If you really find it difficult, you can try to write it more clearly in the instructions so as to quote the contents of the instructions in case you are called back for revision.
In your narrative, I drafted the following proposition:
Claim 1: A pure mechanical device includes several parts of ABCDEG, among which (this paragraph is the same as other similar patents in the technical field), which is characterized in that E can drive B to leave A..
Claim 2: The mechanical device according to claim 1 is characterized in that it is also provided with a trigger F, which will release the restriction on E after being touched.
The remaining creditor's rights belong to subordinate creditor's rights. You can choose the aspects you want to protect more, or you can add some other restrictions.
I hope the answer will help you.