TobyBennett0753 · 23 Jun 2026, 07:35 UTC
Ask the integrator to define the complete held assembly against the installed machine opening. Your earlier observation is exactly why an empty-tool route cannot establish this loaded exit.
16 pointsThe tool body is identified in the offer, but the fingers and grip position are not. The open door is a catalogue outline. I have requested both missing definitions.
16 pointsWho joins those inputs into one review, Toby? Separate tool and machine drawings won't reconcile themselves, however carefully purchasing files the attachments.
8 pointsOur integrator has agreed to own the combined model. Toolmaker and machine lead will provide inputs. No revised route yet, just agreement about who supplies what.
5 pointsDoes the review include the intended empty return as well as loaded withdrawal?
12 pointsAnd the setter's access. I keep asking others for it while my own proposal is still missing geometry. A robot position can clear the blank and still be a nuisance every time the fixture changes.
-4 pointsAisha, agreed, but don't assume Toby needs a different base yet. The current position hasn't even had the complete tool and door assessed.
11 pointsPriya, both route states are included. Aisha, the setter is marking the required access. Mina, no alternative base proposed; we're still defining the original candidate.
9 pointsTooling has supplied fingers and adapter with the steel blank at its grip position. The door survey is still outstanding. That improves one input without establishing whether the route fits.
16 pointsIs flexible routing defined or still provisional in that tool assembly?
16 pointsProvisional allowance only. I'll have the integrator state which route conclusions depend on it and what final check is required. Door measurement and the combined assessment remain open.
6 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.