I'm retaining the full approach-and-withdrawal requirement from the other mill reviews. This FR10 brass-blank exchange proposal still omits the gripper body and open door, so the reachable fixture dot cannot settle the arm choice. Who should supply and check the missing geometry before the purchase review?
Split the inputs: machine lead surveys door, opening and fixture against a common reference; tool supplier defines the full open and closed assembly, held blank and connections. Integrator joins them into the route assessment.
Identify the source and revision of each dimension. A precise-looking tool model and an opening measured from an old machine brochure are not a reliable combined view.
Have the setter describe fixture removal while that survey is happening. An apparently spare patch of floor can be the place their trolley needs to turn.
Keep the proposed stand location provisional until those requirements meet, or purchasing may make the first sketch's base position more fixed than the task needs.
Requests split that way. The setter has marked the trolley route, and the stand is explicitly provisional. Tool supplier returned the fingers but not the rear fittings, so the assembly is still incomplete.
Keep that distinction visible to the integrator. A missing drawing and an undecided assembly are different dependencies, even though neither lets you complete the route check today.
And show the receiving side in the same task. Clearing the mill opening can still leave the hand unable to release the brass blank where the next operation expects it.
Ask maintenance about access to replace the hand and service the machine too. The setter's trolley route is important, but it doesn't describe every occasion someone needs that space.
Fittings are selected and now fully drawn, Imran. Parked state, receiving release and maintenance access are in the combined brief. The integrator has the complete view for assessment; no route result yet.
Keep any alternative tool or base location as a whole option when results come back. I don't want the low price from one arrangement and the convenient access from another quietly forming the purchasing comparison.
It found the proposed loaded turn fouls the door fitting. A different hand orientation is being assessed, including receiving release and parked access. The original turn is rejected; the arm itself hasn't been ruled out.
Price that complete alternative with its conditions when the assessment is ready; the identified clash gives you something real to compare, not approval to buy whichever revised sketch arrives first.