And have those checked against the robot's applicable limits for the intended motions and orientations. I would keep the assessed assembly revision in the handover, since later tooling changes can invalidate a perfectly sound initial review.

Neither proposal gives a loaded centre of gravity or inertia. One includes a gripper catalogue mass, but the adapter and extended fingers appear only in its sketch. I've not selected either.

Are the two designs solving the same approach and release requirement? A shorter assembly can look attractive while assuming a different housing orientation or receiving nest.

Mei, would your handover also identify the approved fittings, not just the main tool?

Yes, where they belong to the assessed assembly and service route. I've seen a replacement fitting gain bulk without anyone thinking of it as a tooling change; its thread still matched, which was only one requirement.

Leah Bell, both must reach our existing nest, but one uses a different approach orientation. I'll keep those assumptions visible while the integrator reviews the complete designs. Missing assembly figures are still with the suppliers.

That is preferable to forcing identical geometry, Leah Chan; compare the same job requirements, with each proposal's assumptions and limits stated. Neither has established suitability yet.

Any extra preparation required by that different approach? It should stay in the purchase comparison too.