Our first-piece setter put the real open door beside the proposed FR10 approach and immediately pointed at a handle absent from the sketch. The bare steel blank fits through. The loaded gripper is still only an outline. I want the access review to include the setter's job as well as the transfer, but who should bring those two views together?
Our review became useful once the integrator owned the combined model and the machine owner supplied the measured door details; ask for those contributions against one identified arrangement rather than two separate assurances.
At the front opening, Thomas, with a small inspection trolley beside them. Our proposed stand uses some of that space. Chloe, integrator has agreed to combine the measured machine and full tool information.
Check the empty withdrawal in that same model, because the tool shape after release may be the awkward one even when the loaded approach looks comfortable.
Thomas, I'd have the setter walk through the trolley movement, not just mark their standing position. Our teaching layouts always look generous until somebody brings the actual bench kit and needs to turn it around.
Hazel, usually back to the inspection bench. Fiona and Thomas, setter wants the route kept clear for that return too. Rachel and Luca, release and empty withdrawal are now explicit parts of the access request.
Matt, I would keep alternatives open, yes. Alex is asking about the eventual handover owner, though, and naming them now doesn't commit Toby to this stand position. Those can move together without pretending the layout is settled.
Alex, quality and the setter own that instruction together. Matt, a side position is now a candidate, but the full tool route hasn't been checked there. We're not moving the trolley route on a promising sketch.
Toby, post which candidate survives the combined review when it comes back; the handle and trolley have already made this more useful than the original reach picture.