@MinaChan1120 After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.

@AnilArcher0375 Use that measured layout to review the complete approach and retreat offline. Include the tool, cables and service access, then ask the integrator to assess a revised mounting arrangement.

@MinaChan1120 The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved.

A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.

You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.

@MinaChan1120 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.

@MinaChan1120 The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

Yes. Include the required entry direction and withdrawal conditions, not just an end pose. A reachable point can still have no usable approach with the proposed tool.

@MinaChan1120 For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

I'll add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

@AmaraBarnes0600 I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?

A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.

Would a supervised trial with a representative fixture let us make useful progress on geometry while the machine interface responsibilities are still being defined?

@AnilArcher0375 Yes, under a suitable supervised test plan. Keep the demonstrated mount and tool details, and describe the result as geometry evidence with the machine interface still outstanding.