AdaCarter0999 · 4 Jul 2026, 17:22 UTC
Define the held blank with the complete gripper, fingers, adapter and connections, then compare its route against surveyed machine and door geometry rather than the fixture point alone.
7 pointsWho supplies the actual parked-door position? Maximum opening is not necessarily the operating position.
17 pointsAnd the tool connection's position matters. Listing a fitting does not define its occupied space.
14 pointsMachine service owns the door survey. Tool supplier is defining grip depth and the complete connection arrangement.
16 pointsIs the base position already constrained by something, or is it just the sketch's first suggestion?
11 pointsKeep human fixture-change and service tasks in the survey too, so any candidate base is compared with the same real access requirements.
6 pointsBase is provisional. Setter has marked fixture removal space; there is no agreed alternative location yet.
19 pointsWill the combined model include empty withdrawal with the fingers open, as well as loaded entry?
3 pointsYes. Complete states and connecting movements are in scope. Supplier drawings are back; integrator is joining them.
21 pointsUse a common reference when joining them. Two valid component drawings need not share an origin.
0 pointsThat caught an error in the first combined view: the adapter origin was mistaken for the wrist mounting face. Integrator is correcting it before reporting any interference.
15 pointsDid that correction change the candidate, or only repair how it was represented?
6 pointsUseful distinction. A corrected assembly model doesn't mean the offered hardware changed; keep the actual revision identifiable.
6 pointsSame offered hardware. Corrected model clears entry, release and withdrawal at the original candidate base.
11 pointsHas the clearance review allowed for the actual door position range and installed variation?
23 pointsAnd don't convert room in the model into an arm-loading result. Those are separate assessments.
23 pointsDoor range and installation allowances are included in the revised review. Loading assessment is still outstanding.
17 pointsDoes the setter still have the marked removal space at that base?
7 pointsYes, setter and service accepted their access. The complete-load assessment is now acceptable too. We have shortlisted this configuration, with physical commissioning and the final cost comparison still to do.
14 pointsKeep the corrected reference alignment and assessed assembly with the shortlist. They explain why the apparent interference disappeared without pretending the original incomplete sketch had already proved the choice.
6 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.