I'd keep the access review and arm loading assessment separate but tied to the same assembly revision. A route can have room without the proposed arm being an acceptable choice.

Gabriel, the grip depth is defined on our tool drawing; it simply never reached the machine sketch, and I've asked the supplier to combine those with the door survey rather than send another reach circle

Then include the connection service access in that combined view, Jamie, since nobody enjoys discovering that replacing a line requires removing the fixture.

Have they found a route yet? I would be interested in whether the door or the tool body sets the limit once both are present.

The first complete view shows the tool's rear connection passing through the parked door, not a fingertip problem; moving the base farther out loses the intended pickup approach in their assessment

So a bigger reach number alone isn't the answer. Any other position needs the same full assessment. Don't let the rear connection disappear again because someone is now drawing a different robot.

That makes the handover fairly straightforward, keep those rejected positions with their reasons so the next enquiry doesn't spend a fortnight rediscovering the same door.