I can't choose an FR5 position from this top view

Doorway clearance first. We haven't got a path proposal yet. I'd rather discover an impossible tool pose before paying for the next design stage.

Then model the full tool at that pose, including the blank. What dimensions have you actually got from the tooling supplier?

Body and finger drawings, but the connector is only in a catalogue photograph. I've asked for its dimensions and routing requirements instead of measuring pixels.

Fair enough. I'd leave that part of the clearance decision pending until the supplier answers, because your mock-up could otherwise approve a space the connector needs

Mark the tool orientation on the mock-up too. Ours got flipped during a meeting and suddenly everyone thought we'd gained clearance. Very cheap miracle, briefly.

Was the flipped version physically impossible, or just different from the tool design? Asking because an orientation change might still be a design option

For this proposal, make the represented pose explicit. A mock-up with no defined relationship to the flange can show a shape fitting through a hole without showing a usable robot configuration.

The supplier has supplied the connector envelope. Our assembled model fits at the planned pose, but only if we omit the machine's door latch. Which we shall generously count as not fitting.

Before somebody suggests removing the latch, is there another base or tool orientation worth modelling within the machine's proper operating arrangement? A crowded drawing tends to make perfectly necessary parts look optional.

Can your designer compare a rotated tool orientation while keeping the machine arrangement intact? That seems the next useful drawing

They are checking two orientations. We are keeping the latch and door arrangement as supplied. The mock-up has done its job of finding the clash, not choosing the solution.

And will that comparison include the wrist behind the tool? I don't want us to spend another week measuring fingers and forget what carries them

Also request the permitted assumptions for the cable route. The connector envelope answers one local question. It does not describe how the cable occupies space through the proposed motion.

Yes to the wrist, and the cable routing is now with the tooling designer. They've found one plausible orientation, subject to the full motion review. Nothing has been ordered.

To answer Ada's earlier question, our flipped mock-up put the hose exit through the bracket. An alternative tool could have done it, but the quoted one couldn't.

That is why I like the actual quoted assembly identified in the review, not just 'gripper'. Stores cannot hand over the clever alternative everyone imagined if purchasing ordered the original.

Did the one remaining orientation survive the motion review, or are you still waiting on the cable route?

Still waiting on the cable route. The rigid geometry review found no clash along the proposed path, but we've left the comparison provisional until the complete assembly is reviewed.