@LuisAllen0347 After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.

@AdaBrooks0825 Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.

Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

@AdaBrooks0825 Going larger should open up mounting options. It might be the most straightforward option to explore.

Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle.

@LeahAli0234 Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@LuisAllen0347 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.

Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.

@LuisAllen0347 Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer.

I'll include empty and loaded tool outlines. We also need to agree who owns the machine signals; that part of the quote is vague.

Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

@LeahAli0234 I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?

A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.

@LuisAllen0347 Can we trial representative fixture geometry while the interface scope is still open? I'd like to move the access question along.

@AdaBrooks0825 Yes, under a suitable supervised test plan. Keep the demonstrated mount and tool details, and describe the result as geometry evidence with the machine interface still outstanding.