@EllaAllen0294 Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

@AdaBell0651 Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.

@EllaAllen0294 Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

@AdaBell0651 A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

@EllaAllen0294 Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle

Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@EllaAllen0294 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

@ChloeBrooks0831 Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

@AdaBell0651 Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

@KaiAllen0280 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.

@EllaAllen0294 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.

Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer.

@ChloeBrooks0831 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

@IsabelArcher0387 Machine ready means safe to enter, doesn't it? The sales wording makes them sound alike.

@KaiAllen0280 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.

Can we trial representative fixture geometry while the interface scope is still open? I'd like to move the access question along.

@AdaBell0651 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.