I've the torch assembly drawing and clamp model. The layout pack doesn't state any required torch orientations. It really is just reach so far.

@VictorBennett0707 Request those orientations from your welding engineer and put the real tool into the model. That will make the clearance question assessable.

Assessable at a pose, perhaps. You haven't mentioned getting into or out of it, or the cable envelope. Those can spoil a convincing screenshot.

@MiaChan1079 That's a necessary correction to my scope. The review should cover approach and withdrawal with the mounting hardware and cable-routing envelope, as well as the process pose.

Who supplies the cable envelope? The torch drawing shows connectors but doesn't define the routed shape.

Ask your integrator to obtain and identify the routing assumptions with the relevant equipment supplier. An undefined cable path should stay a visible model limitation.

I had another welding layout with an accurate tool model and omitted extraction hardware. The resulting clearance assessment looked convincing but didn't cover the full arrangement.

@AmyAdams0119 Our extraction equipment is missing too. I'll add it to the model inventory rather than trust that empty space in the screenshot.

@VictorBennett0707 Could an obstructing clamp simply be relocated to create the required torch access?

It has a workholding job as well. Your fixture designer and welding engineer need to assess whether a proposed move still supports the assembly and process.

I can explain why the reach sketch isn't enough, but I can't yet accept the access concept. The real geometry still needs assessment against the welding requirements.

That follows from the gap. Understanding the sketch's limitation helps without establishing workable torch access.