@HenryBennett0699 After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.

Use that measured layout to review the complete approach and retreat offline. Include the tool, cables and service access, then ask the integrator to assess a revised mounting arrangement.

Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

Going larger should open up mounting options. It might be the most straightforward option to explore.

Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle.

@YasminBaker0441 Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@HenryBennett0699 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.

@AnnaAli0242 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.

Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

@AnnaAbbott0068 A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.

The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

Yes. Include the required entry direction and withdrawal conditions, not just an end pose. A reachable point can still have no usable approach with the proposed tool.

For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

@AnnaAli0242 I'll add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

@AnilBrooks0810 Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?

A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.

The handle overlap gives us something concrete to fix. No assessed layout yet, so the arm stays on the shortlist.

@AnilBrooks0810 The obstruction is a useful finding, even with the final layout still open.