CarlaBrown0923 · 16 Jun 2026, 17:28 UTC
I'd ask the integrator to show the complete held assembly through approach and loaded exit, with the installed door position included, because the point can be reachable while the tool cannot leave with your blank.
12 pointsGet the door's actual parked position. Opening width alone doesn't show where the handles and fittings end up.
2 pointsAnd name the tool revision. I've been collecting these questions for my own review, and fingers drawn separately from an adapter seem to leave everyone imagining a different assembly. Still no winning layout to offer you.
23 pointsWe have a finger concept, not a complete tool drawing. The machine outline shows the opening but no parked-door fittings. Neither missing item has been checked elsewhere.
-2 pointsI would bring the setter into it now. They may need the same opening when changing the fixture, so a base position that suits the robot can still make the ordinary changeover awkward.
12 pointsLuis, I would ask them to show the whole task, not just point out where they stand. Carrying the fixture in, removing it and dealing with a part left behind all need space.
5 pointsAnd ask which of those tasks the intended operator actually performs, so the review doesn't give everyone the setter's access assumptions
21 pointsWho owns collecting those comments into the candidate layout? Useful questions can still become three independent approvals, none covering the actual shared space. I'd keep the drawing owner explicit before the next price revision
3 pointsJuliaBrown, exactly, and I'd ask who triggers another review if the tool changes later; a layout approval can survive in purchasing long after the assembly it described has disappeared.
15 pointsWould a rough side view help first, before paying for a full model?
7 pointsGabriel, useful for exposing missing geometry or a clear clash, provided it's dimensioned from the intended arrangement; I wouldn't ask it to establish every orientation and clearance through the whole path.
8 pointsThe integrator will own the combined drawing. I've asked for the complete tool, door survey and setter's task to be brought together, with the rough view used to find questions rather than sign off access.
1 pointsKeep service access marked too. Someone eventually needs to reach those fittings when the cell isn't performing its nice normal sequence.
12 pointsDean, do you mean the tool fittings or the machine service panels? Both are easy to leave out, but I would send those requests to different people.
10 pointsBoth. Tool supplier for its service requirements, machine maintenance for panels and removal space. I should have separated those.
1 pointsThe door survey is back, but the tool assembly is still incomplete. No measured clash yet and no alternate base proposal. I've passed the separate service-access requests to the right people.
12 pointsThat last distinction matters: no measured clash because the model is incomplete is not the same thing as a completed model showing none.
4 pointsI would leave the candidate price provisional on that basis, Carla. Not rejected, but not a purchase recommendation supported by an access result either
18 pointsThat's how I'm recording it. We have better inputs and an owner now, not evidence that this arrangement works.
7 pointsPlease post what the complete tool changes. Interested whether the original position remains worth assessing.
18 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.