After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.

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.

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

Going larger should open up mounting options. It might be the most straightforward option to explore.

Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle

@HanaBrown0883 Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@AnilArcher0375 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.

@ElenaBell0688 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.

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

@GabrielBell0627 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.

The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

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.

Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer.

@ElenaBell0688 I'll add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

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

I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?

A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.

Can we trial representative fixture geometry while the interface scope is still open? I'd like to move the access question along.

It can, with an appropriate supervised procedure. Record the actual tool and mount, and make clear that the trial addresses geometry while interface work remains open.