our fr5 unloading arrow goes straight through the open door

David's right. I would include the change between those short runs, Maya. If the operator must spend longer preparing each one, the clean transfer clip will overstate what the job gains.

Not measured yet, Ada. Machine owner is doing that. Setter has marked the fixture trolley route and the space he needs to reach the clamp handles.

Who is providing the complete gripper geometry, Maya, including the adapter and whatever fittings sit behind it? I'd rather have one person own that missing assembly than another week of everyone offering the bit they know.

Hassan, agreed, but the integrator still needs to combine it with the machine survey. Two accurate separate drawings can leave the same unanswered route question.

If an alternative stand position is proposed, put the setter's marked route onto that candidate as well; it should not inherit the first position's access judgement.

And include cabinet doors. Maintenance still needs to open them.

Our students spotted a missing return path when we showed the complete tool beside the original line drawing. That comparison might help your team agree why the first sketch is insufficient.

Did the survey change the proposed opening?

Yes, Toby. The door handle projects into the original withdrawal. Hassan, tool supplier owns the full assembly; Jonas, receiving insert is identified. Integrator is comparing another approach with the setter's route retained.

Good. What happens to the blank between that changed approach and release? Don't let a better-looking withdrawal buy an unexplained turn somewhere else.

And has anyone costed the changeover work yet? I asked because those short runs can be the deciding part, not because every access review needs another spreadsheet.