Can the FR10 unloading comparison use the complete tool-removal envelope?

The revised study uses our survey and complete tool, and the normal sequence clears, but maintenance removal is still an arrow pointing through a cabinet.

Does that cabinet move as part of the intended maintenance method? If not, the arrow is describing a different workshop.

Fixed cabinet, and maintenance has no removal method requiring it to move; I have sent that back rather than letting the arrow become an assumption.

What does the maintenance team need to remove, and with what equipment? Ask them to mark the approach and the place the removed assembly will go. The integrator can then compare a real alternative instead of finding a second place for the arrow.

Maintenance supplied the lifting arrangement and landing position; the proposed stand blocks its approach, so the integrator is comparing a side position with the same tool and handling sequence.

Any result on the side position yet, including the setter's normal work?

Normal handling and setter access are checked for that position, but the lifting approach is still with maintenance for review; no stand order yet.

Keep the maintenance question attached to the actual layout revision. Otherwise the next quotation can inherit the normal-handling pass while dropping the unanswered reason you moved the stand.