Why has the complete tool disappeared from our next FR10 removal study?

Integrator called it preliminary in the email. Purchasing's comparison stripped that word out. We have corrected that, and the integrator is obtaining the identified tool assembly and current machine survey.

Include the fixture-change route in that survey too; the space around a cylindrical blank can look generous while the setter's trolley still needs the proposed base location.

Jack, does the proposal define the held position against the fixture task? The complete tool drawing alone will not tell the reviewer how much blank extends beyond its fingers.

Tooling has now defined the held position and release arrangement. The first combined view puts the rear fitting into the open door return. The base footprint also overlaps part of the fixture trolley route.

Those belong as two findings, not one red circle around the robot. A tool revision might fix the fitting and do nothing for the trolley.

Aisha, exactly; I'd have the setter confirm the whole trolley movement, not just whether its parked rectangle fits beside a shifted base.

Could the integrator compare another fixed position within the permitted area, if one exists? Keep the same tool and grip initially so the effect of that move remains clear.

There is a side position within the area released by our cell owner. Integrator is comparing it with the same held assembly and the setter's full route. No changed tool or arm has been selected.

Has that side position also preserved the maintenance access in the survey? Worth asking before the trolley result becomes the new shorthand for everything fits.