Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring

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?

@OwenArcher0399 Going larger should open up mounting options. It might be the most straightforward option to explore.

@LucyCarter1002 Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle.

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

@LucyCarter1002 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing

@OwenArcher0399 Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.

Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

@OwenArcher0399 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.

I've decided to base our arm selection on a measured access review. A workable layout for the complete tool and a qualified assessment will be conditions of choosing the arm

That puts the access question in the right place in the decision. A conditional selection fits the limits of the sketch.