OwenBarnes0573 · 23 Jan 2026, 05:51 UTC
Wherever the intended sequence needs it, including opening at the relevant transfer point and the empty return. Ask the integrator to show those states on the complete route against your measured door, not add one open-tool pose in a convenient empty corner.
20 pointsRequested. Supplier sent closed-tool geometry again, with an arrow labelled return. No open fingers or rear fittings.
3 pointsHave they acknowledged those specific missing parts, or only promised a revised drawing?
14 pointsSpecific omissions acknowledged now. Tool designer owns the open assembly; integrator owns the combined route.
19 pointsKeep the setter in that combined review. Your remaining stand still needs to work for fixture changes, not just the robot sequence. We can get very focused on the one missing model and forget who has to work around it.
16 pointsDaniel's right. Does the current survey also cover maintenance access that the stand or tool might block? It should not inherit approval simply because the door clears this candidate.
2 pointsSetter and maintenance both have the candidate. Service-panel access is a separate marked requirement in their review.
7 pointsHas the complete open assembly arrived yet?
10 pointsYes. Combined route shows a rear fitting crossing the door handle. Integrator is comparing another orientation.
3 pointsAlternative avoids that clash in the returned model. Setter accepts fixture-change access; maintenance still reviewing service-panel access. No stand order.
17 pointsThat is a useful status to give purchasing. Keep the service-panel question attached to this exact alternative so it doesn't disappear behind the improved robot route.
4 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .