And don't start by choosing a stand and asking everything else to squeeze round it. We spent more time rescuing a favourite base position than comparing the actual tooling options. The drawing already looked finished, which didn't help.

Integrator has accepted ownership. It was only given a machine catalogue model and the blank drawing at first. Machine contact is measuring our working opening; toolmaker is supplying both open and held states.

Beth's point matters, but keep real site restrictions explicit too; some positions are unavailable for reasons a clean machine model will never show.

Our stores trolley uses the same space as a setter's fixture change, so involve whoever brings the tooling in as well. The person standing at the machine may not be the person arriving with a loaded trolley.

Isaac, we found that overlap during a shift change rather than a cycle review, so Yasmin's operator discussion could be useful before the supplier finishes its next drawing.

The setter and tooling runner walked it together. They need the aisle-side space kept clear for the loaded trolley. The closest stand proposal occupies it, so that position is out.

What remains on the table?

A different tool might be worth comparing before moving the stand farther away. Not saying it will work, Yasmin, but a shorter assembly could change the choices more than another reach circle.

Beth, yes, provided the toolmaker assesses the complete new grip and motion. A shorter assembly is a design option, not permission to shorten whatever is on the sketch. I'd price it against a different location and the manual method.

Those are the three options now. Original tool clashes with the open handle from the farther position. Toolmaker proposes a shorter adapter with the same intended grip, still needing its complete assessment. Manual unloading remains the baseline.

Keep the original clash tied to that particular assembly and position; otherwise the summary can accidentally reject every farther position or approve every shorter tool.

What happens to the removed tool at that farther position? We have clear access to the bolts on one bench and no decent supported place for the tool once it's off. A very literal half-finished maintenance provision.

Isaac, maintenance has proposed a support location beside the service side. Not checked yet. Hassan, each candidate has its own identified assembly and layout revision in the comparison.

Does the operator still reach the normal cleaning points with the shorter adapter proposal, Yasmin? Our last clever grip change hid the place the operator needed to inspect between batches.

Callum, useful distinction. Cleaning access, fixture change and tool maintenance may all require different spaces. I'd have each task shown, rather than one label saying access maintained.

Shorter assembly passed the tooling assessment and clears the complete transfer in the combined model. Setter has accepted cleaning and fixture-change access. Maintenance still needs to check its proposed support location, so we haven't selected it.

Thanks for bringing the tool option back, Yasmin. Does its actual price leave a worthwhile saving, or did the compact answer eat the business case?

Smaller saving, still within our comparison limit. Purchasing has the new price and the remaining maintenance question. It won't order from the older, cheaper assembly description.