Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

@AdaCarter0999 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.

The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved.

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

@LucyBell0654 Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle.

You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.

@LucyBell0654 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.

@CallumBrown0882 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?

A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.

The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

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.

For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

@CallumBrown0882 I'll add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

@AdaCarter0999 Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

Machine ready means safe to enter, doesn't it? The sales wording makes them sound alike.

Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.

Measured access review first, then an arm decision. I've settled on that route; choosing the arm depends on a workable full-tool layout and qualified assessment.

Using an assessed layout as the condition gives the selection a clear basis beyond the reach sketch.