Include the tool connections behind the body. A model that stops at the mounting face can miss the fitting that reaches the opening first. Ask which dimensions are confirmed and which are still placeholders before judging any clearance result.

Integrator will combine the supplier geometry. Setter has been asked for the actual changeover route. No clearance approval from the current sketch.

Are those suppliers committed to providing the missing assemblies, or only saying they'll help? I'd settle the scope before the selection date starts pressuring everyone to sign the incomplete drawing.

The scope should include delivery of the blank to its next location. I mean the removal job ends there, not just at the point where the tool clears the door. That can affect the whole route being compared.

I helped review a layout where the final drawing had an updated fixture but the collision run still used the earlier mesh. Keep the model revisions in the result, not only in the supplier emails, or the complete-looking picture can be describing a different calculation

Joseph's revision point is useful, but I would not demand a polished simulation before the first geometric check. A dimensioned overlay can expose a definite obstruction cheaply, as long as nobody turns a clear overlay into approval of the full motion.

Agreed. First check can reject a route without validating every route it doesn't reject.

Both suppliers committed to identified geometry. Tool assembly is received; door survey is due for the review. We will start with the combined dimensions, not treat receipt as validation.

Keep the installation date provisional while that evidence is missing, because a supplier's promised survey is not a checked layout.

Does the full tool include the fingers in their opening position too?

That state matters at the source and the receiving end wherever the fingers open, Aisha. Stephanie, I'd have the integrator label the actual states in the sequence so a large open-hand outline isn't applied indiscriminately to every part of the route either.

Opening states are included. Survey now received. The initial combined check finds no static overlap at the drawn grip pose, but it has not examined the connecting path.

Did the setter review use the same proposed base position as that check?

Yes. The base occupies the space used to bring the fixture trolley in. That is an identified changeover conflict, even though the grip pose itself is clear.

Then don't let purchasing read clear grip pose as feasible cell. I would want the alternative base position or changed changeover arrangement costed before anyone says the original offer is complete.

And any base change needs the blank route checked again. Fixing the trolley conflict may change the robot access, so those two review results cannot simply be carried over independently.

Integrator is assessing a shifted base with the setter's route retained. Original location is not accepted, and arm selection stays provisional until the complete removal sequence is checked at the alternative.

That is a useful result from the early review: a real human-access conflict, not a guessed robot collision. Retain both findings so the next drawing answers the problem actually found.