Door-mounted coolant hose occupies our proposed withdrawal route

Hose was added after the machine arrived. It has a parked position, but the bracket holding it isn't on the layout either.

Include the parked assembly and the access needed to use it. The operator may still need that hose after automation, even if it clears during normal production.

Operator uses it during changeover. I've asked them to mark the space they need alongside the proposed stand position.

That should help distinguish a production path from a workable installation. Have you obtained the complete gripper geometry yet?

Our toolmaker supplied the finger shape but left the valve block out of the model (it was mounted later), worth asking for services and fittings with the whole assembly.

Yes, the installed assembly is the relevant one. A useful review should identify anything provisional rather than silently treating missing hardware as empty space.

Have they checked the tool open, or just holding the brass part?

Both now. Tool supplier added the valve block and open fingers. That narrowed the doorway clearance in the model enough to need another base-position study.

A bigger arm isn't automatically the answer to a doorway obstruction. Get the complete sequence assessed before the sales discussion jumps from missing geometry to another robot.

Agreed. The configuration through the opening matters, not just a maximum reach figure. The reviewer should assess the proposed route using the actual assembly.

Sales had suggested a different arm. I've asked them to finish the FR10 access study first so we can see what the obstruction actually is.

Ask them to record the limiting geometry or configuration in the result. That gives a basis for comparing any alternative instead of starting the same incomplete sketch again.

What did the operator say about using the hose with the stand there?

Original position blocks his normal changeover stance. A forward position looks better on the floor marking. Still needs the motion review, and the service route checked.

Give maintenance that forward position too, ours cleared the operator's feet and hid the access panel needed to replace the hose fitting.

And don't infer a production clearance from a floor marking. It's useful for access discussion, but the complete moving geometry still needs its own review.

Those are complementary checks. The floor exercise can reject an inconvenient location before someone spends time reviewing its detailed motion.

Integrator found a candidate route from the forward position. Report lists the hose park bracket as an unresolved dimension. Maintenance access is acceptable in the layout; no order placed yet.

Have they since verified that bracket dimension against the machine? It is a small item, but the report has explicitly made the candidate route conditional on it.