I know the complete loaded hand and installed door need combining, but my short-steel-blank loading proposal still has neither in the FR10 sketch and I am getting separate replies from separate suppliers instead of an answer about the bay.
Have you asked the integrator to state which decisions remain blocked by those missing inputs? I have an unloading review with the same omission, and a list of dependencies is more useful to me than another general request for drawings.
Include service access in that list. Moving a base to solve the loading route can make the maintenance job disappear from the drawing while it remains very real in the bay.
The setter says the base location takes the space used to bring blanks to the machine, which was not even on the sketch, so I have asked the integrator to own that alongside the door and hand
Can material arrive from the other side without creating a new crossing or blocking a service panel? That is a layout option to assess, not an instruction to move the delivery point today.
I would keep the current delivery route drawn while comparing that option. Otherwise the burden of making the robot fit quietly becomes a new operator job nobody has agreed to.
We walked through the manual job with the setter and recorded the loaded trolley dimensions while the installation was inactive; the alternative delivery side is a dead end for that trolley
Integrator has withdrawn the original base location from the comparison because it removes our working supply route, and is checking a different position with the now-received door and loaded-hand geometry
Keep that rejected location visible in the decision notes. A clean redraw can otherwise lose the reason nobody wanted the apparently convenient position.