Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.

@HazelBell0658 Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

@CarlaBrown0923 A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.

@LuisBennett0782 You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.

@HazelBell0658 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

@TobyCarter1014 Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

@CarlaBrown0923 Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

@LinAbbott0009 A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.

Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.

For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

@TobyCarter1014 I'll include empty and loaded tool outlines. We also need to agree who owns the machine signals; that part of the quote is vague.

Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

Machine ready means safe to enter, doesn't it? The sales wording makes them sound alike.

Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.

The handle overlap gives us something concrete to fix. No assessed layout yet, so the arm stays on the shortlist.

Having a specific access issue to resolve is progress; it doesn't require choosing the arm yet.