Only a gripper model and a finger concept so far. I can request the assembly, but I can't honestly give the reviewer its working envelope yet

That is exactly where our earlier FR5 review stalled: brochure present, adapter and fingers absent. I kept the candidate provisional. It was missing evidence about the arrangement, not evidence that the arm could never do the job.

Isabel, did purchasing accept that distinction? People hear provisional as 'please get three prices for something larger', then the new arm inherits the same missing tool drawing

I cannot claim the whole purchasing process was settled. In the discussion I posted, I had decided to keep the comparison provisional; the complete assembly was still what we lacked.

Bruno's service space needs an owner too. Maintenance should mark what must be accessed or removed. Don't expect a tool designer to guess your panel-removal job.

In our teaching bay I also want the routine fixture change shown. Not only repair access. The equipment can be technically reachable while the person changing a fixture has nowhere sensible to put the removed one.

Beatrice, is that storage during the change or the route out of the bay? I would show both if they differ, because the person writing the instruction may otherwise assume one convenient empty space serves every step.

Both in my example. We initially drew a place for the removed fixture but forgot how it got there. Thank you for separating the two; that is clearer than my note saying changeover space.

The integrator has agreed to own the combined review. Machine service and fixture-change areas are being marked by our team while the tool assembly is completed; no alternative base position has been proposed

Keep that last point visible, Reece. Otherwise someone may read all our access comments as approval for a base move that nobody has actually drawn.

And keep geometric access separate from application safety approval. A route that fits is necessary evidence, not a complete decision about the supervised cell.

We once compared clearances from two drawings with different reference origins. I'd ask for the combined model's datum and revisions to be explicit before discussing small margins.

Ivan, did the difference change the arrangement or only the reported margin? That seems worth distinguishing before a review spends money on a new model.

Reported margin in our case. The physical arrangement was unchanged; the drawings needed reconciliation. I can't infer the effect here.

I like starting with that reconciliation. Paying for detail on a layout nobody agrees about is frustrating, especially when maintenance is already booking time to review it

We now have an identified assembly and combined layout, but the empty-tool withdrawal passes through a door fitting. The integrator is reviewing that interference; neither a base move nor a different arm is selected

That is a specific interference to resolve, not a general reach verdict; any proposed tool or layout change must return through the combined review, including the access areas your team added.