LeoBarnes0536 · 6 Jul 2026, 15:03 UTC
Start with the intended complete tool holding the blank at its specified depth and orientation, then put it through the actual machine opening and receiving release route, with the setter's normal work represented too; a reachable fixture point does not define any of that.
6 pointsComplete tool model now fouls the door-side fitting during loaded withdrawal. The receiving release clears.
12 pointsKeep that rejected position and the particular clash, then let the integrator propose an alternative with tooling and machine owners; a different grip or base would need its own complete route and human-access assessment rather than borrowing the receiving result unchanged.
10 pointsIntegrator proposed another held orientation at the same base. Toolmaker accepts the grip; combined model review is pending.
8 pointsCheck that the new orientation still permits release at the receiver as well as clearing the machine, because turning the held blank changes more than the spot which failed first.
8 pointsRevised route clears both ends with the full assembly. Load and setter-access reviews accept this concept; physical application verification remains.
9 pointsThen you have a defined candidate for the next stage, with its grip, route and assessment references retained; the initial reach sketch has finally become something that can be tested without somebody inventing the missing hand on installation day.
13 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.