Not agreed yet. The sketch just shows the blank at the fixture, Daniel.

Luis, that's a separate access task but absolutely part of the arm choice. Don't let a successful automatic path be used as the answer to the setter's route.

Luis, through that same opening. The base sketch doesn't show the setter or fixture removal space.

Then ask for the two tasks explicitly in the review. Machine owner supplies installed geometry and the setter's task; toolmaker confirms held orientation; integrator brings them together for the proposed robot arrangement. Nobody has to guess the missing hand.

Has the integrator combined those inputs yet? Having both is useful, but mine still need joining before anyone can answer the route question.

And retain the tool revision beside that orientation. A later shorter adapter proposal would be a different assessed assembly, not a harmless tidy-up of this picture.

Combined view shows the tool's rear connection occupying the parked-door space at the proposed exchange orientation.

That rules out this depicted arrangement, not every possible FR5 arrangement; who is deciding whether an alternative is worth investigating?

I'd like the setter's finding kept alongside it. There's little value in solving the tool clash and only then discovering the proposed base prevents the fixture change.

Our production lead wants alternatives reviewed, with setter access included. No arm order authorised.

Good place to pause the selection. You've identified a real obstruction in the combined view. Any changed grip, door arrangement or base position needs its own responsible assessment, not an assumption that the line can bend round it.

Leo, the setter assessment remains outstanding. I've put it beside the tool clash in the buying note.

That's the outcome I needed to hear, Pavel. More complete inputs changed the question before money went out. Would be interested which alternative they actually choose to assess, when there is one.