FR5 unloading route without its gripper body

Tooling has the assembly drawing already. The machine survey only gives the opening size; it does not show the door panel parked beside it.

Include the handle and stay. They occupy real space too.

Yes. I have asked the machine contact for that full parked-door outline, rather than measuring only between the guards again.

On our last layout the separate drawings were both accurate, but their origins were different. The first overlay put the fixture in a remarkably convenient place. Have the integrator confirm the shared reference before you take a clash, or apparent clearance, as meaningful.

Useful point, Leo. Include the surveyed fixture location as well as the door outline, so nobody aligns the pages by eye.

Keep the setter's fixture-change area on that survey. It is easier to reject an obstructing stand before it acquires a price and a delivery date.

And maintenance panel access. Different task, easily forgotten.

Setter and maintenance areas are marked on our floor survey. Those were omitted from the supplier's simplified sketch too. I'll give the integrator the survey itself, not just my list of missing things.

That's the sensible source. Do you have a receiving tray position on it, or is the current unloading route still ending outside the machine?

Receiving tray is marked beside the bench. The blank must be placed there, then the open tool returns to the machine. No extra turn of the blank intended.

Then retain that orientation in the assessment; if the supplier proposes turning it for clearance, tooling has to review the changed grip and placement too.

Combined model returned. The proposed withdrawal crosses the parked door handle. The integrator has suggested moving the stand sideways, but has not assessed that candidate through the complete route yet.

Does that proposed move enter the marked setter area? Worth checking before they spend time refining the motion.

It sits on the edge of the marked area in their sketch. I cannot tell whether the base footprint is complete. That is now a specific question for the integrator and setter.

So the original position has a known clash and the sideways idea is still a question. I'd make sure the quotation says that plainly.

Agreed. I'm withholding the stand choice and asking for the complete base footprint in that candidate. At least we now know why the original point-reach picture was insufficient.