our fr5 blank fits the door without its tool

Tool supplier has sent two connection orientations. Integrator is adding both to the surveyed opening.

We found the rear fitting, not the finger, chose the bad position. Has either complete orientation survived the first check?

Rear-facing one conflicts with the door. Side-facing one clears the loaded withdrawal in the model.

What about the empty return with the fingers open? The loaded result is useful, but it does not settle the route back into the machine.

And preserve the setter's access. A surviving robot route can still occupy the fixture-change space.

Empty return conflicts at the handle. Setter's space is clear. Integrator is considering a different base position.

That was the cheaper option to study in our room, though yours may differ. Keep the same complete tool in the new comparison so the apparent improvement has a fair baseline.

Shifted base clears both routes in the model. Maintenance panel access is now restricted, so it is still provisional.

Has maintenance defined the space it actually needs there? That can decide whether this candidate can change or should be dropped.