The tool supplier has a candidate drawing, but our machine outline predates the current door handle; I will get the installed opening checked first.

Keep the old outline marked superseded, then. Otherwise it may reappear beside the more detailed gripper and make the new review look complete.

And be clear what this comparison establishes: geometry and access questions. It doesn't replace the full application risk assessment or verify machine access conditions merely because the door is drawn open.

Leah, would you include the fixture trolley footprint or just the person moving it? I'm thinking about the turn beside the proposed base.

Both, with the fixture on the trolley. A person squeezing through isn't the same thing as getting their load around that corner.

Also the empty gripper after release. Open fingers can need space the held-blank pose doesn't show.

The survey now includes handle projection and trolley route; the candidate tool still needs its rear fitting added before the integrator compares withdrawal.

Has the tool supplier defined hose routing assumptions for that fitting? A nominal body outline with an unspecified connection behind it still leaves an occupied region uncertain.

Use a clearly identified provisional envelope if the exact fitting choice is pending, but have the supplier bound it; don't invent a clearance allowance yourself.

Supplier supplied the missing envelope and routing assumptions; the combined drawing shows the present withdrawal candidate conflicting with the door handle.

That rules out this candidate as drawn, not the FR5 altogether. Changing tool orientation or base position means another complete sequence check.

And return any moved-base option to the setter. The trolley route we just added can disappear again when someone fixes the robot's clash.

Original candidate is held; two revised arrangements are being compared with the setter's route retained, and I haven't selected an arm from either one yet.

Thanks for reporting the actual conflict. It answers why the original reach picture was insufficient without pretending the revised arrangements have already passed.