Our aluminium-blank unloading sketch reaches the fixture and omits the gripper body and open door. Before the FR10 choice gets expensive, what should our integrator show about the whole tool and return route?
I would combine the intended held blank with the complete gripper, fingers, adapter and services, then place it in measured machine geometry. Show approach, grip, loaded withdrawal and empty return. The door position and setter task need actual inputs, not a convenient gap left around the fixture.
Toolmaker has defined the held blank but only supplied the gripper and fingers so far. Machine lead is surveying the door. Adapter and connection arrangement are still missing from the combined view.
Who owns that complete view, Elliot? I would establish the shared revision now so the machine survey and tooling drawings do not become two separate approvals with no checked movement between them.
Integrator owns it. The complete view is back and the rear fitting meets the door stay during withdrawal. They're considering another tool orientation, with the toolmaker checking whether it preserves the grip.
Keep it a candidate until that answer arrives. Rotating the whole assembly may improve clearance, but if it changes how the blank is retained or released then you have changed more than the picture.
Held orientation accepted for the defined assembly. Empty return needed a separate view and is now included. The route clears the stay, but the setter's fixture-removal access remains under review.
Is that an access task the setter can describe with the actual fixture, Elliot? I'd have them show how it comes out rather than ask whether the robot base looks generally out of the way.
Setter walked it with the machine lead and found the fixture trolley needs part of the proposed base area. We have a clearer tool route but no acceptable whole layout yet, so the FR10 purchase remains open.