FR10 polymer-blank sketch without a gripper

Door survey exists. Complete tool outline requested.

Does the survey include the handle in its actual open position?

Handle absent. Machine owner is adding it.

Mark the survey revision when that is corrected. Otherwise the fuller tool may get checked against the same incomplete doorway again, which will look like progress until someone stands beside the machine.

Ask for the quoted adapter and fittings in the outline; ours briefly gained clearance by leaving a connection out of the exported view.

Toolmaker supplying assembly E, including connections. Survey will be M4.

Who will check the actual grip depth against assembly E?

Toolmaker. Grip depth now dimensioned on the proposed assembly.

Then those references can go into the combined review. Have the setter look at the proposed base footprint as well, before a favourable tool outline is treated as a complete station layout.

Combined outline shows a handle clash on withdrawal. Base position still provisional.

Any alternative orientation proposed before moving the base?

Two orientations proposed. Neither fully assessed.

Are both using E and M4? The comparison will be difficult to interpret if one candidate quietly retains the smaller handle or shorter adapter.

Both E and M4 confirmed. Setter has asked for the trolley route too.

That trolley question delayed our own promising layout. Better to find it now than after someone anchors the stand because the robot route looked fine.

Amy, was a different trolley position practical on yours?

Still being reviewed. It needs the setter's agreement; I wouldn't offer moving the trolley as the easy answer to Oscar's layout.

Oscar, who owns the combined trolley and robot drawing?

One integrator-led review with the setter would help. The references and open questions you've gathered are enough to make that meeting useful without pretending either orientation is already approved.