Our 203-steel-blank proposal shows the FR5 reaching the fixture beside an enclosed mill, but its gripper body and the open door are absent. I need a complete access comparison before arm selection. What information should be assembled first, and which conclusions must wait for it?
Get the installed door survey and supplier's complete tool assembly, including held blank and fittings. Have the integrator compare approach and loaded withdrawal, then release and empty return. A target point alone won't answer the route question.
Include who changes the fixture and where that equipment moves. Those access requirements should be recorded before the base position becomes a fixed assumption in the review.
And distinguish missing geometry from an identified interference. The review can collect requirements now, but should not call an undrawn volume clear or obstructed without evidence.
Survey and tool assembly are now together. The original loaded withdrawal intersects the door handle; the integrator is comparing a different orientation while retaining the setter's trolley route.
Has the alternative produced a complete result yet? The original interference is useful evidence, but a proposal to turn the gripper doesn't establish the revised route.
Keep original and proposed assemblies separately identified during that comparison. A change to orientation may also alter the assumed hose route and required clearance, even when the solid parts remain the same.