The offset is as important to establish as the total. Adding all the kilograms won't answer where the load sits or how the proposed move affects it.

Neither names a complete assembly. One gives a standard gripper sheet; our longer fingers appear only in the quote sketch, with an adapter below them.

Standard fingers make wonderful paperwork. Ours became longer on the bench and heavier in reality.

Lewis, was the load assessment revised after that change, or did the installation retain the standard-tool figures?

Revised before release. The designer caught it while checking the installed assembly against the drawing.

That is why I would name a revision owner in Bruno's purchase scope. The initial review matters, but somebody also needs to decide when a tooling change requires reassessment.

Our trainer got the old tool picture after a fitting moved. The operators learned the new clearance from whoever happened to be nearby. I'd include the installed arrangement in handover, once it actually exists.

A complete CAD assembly can help establish the missing geometry before hardware exists, provided material assignments and included components are checked rather than treating the software's mass number as self-validating.

And note what remains estimated. A tidy centre-of-gravity coordinate can be calculated very precisely from a fitting somebody guessed.

Jo's question matters. A shorter adapter may look better on a load sheet and still leave Bruno with a release path that clashes with the nest.

Same required placement, Jo. One designer uses a longer approach offset to clear the nest. I'll compare their complete assemblies, not force identical tools onto the same mass sheet.

That sounds fair. I would still ask each supplier to state any reduced motion or changed incoming presentation its proposal relies on, so the favourable load case is also a usable production case.

Harish, the changed incoming presentation is the bit I'd watch. A supplier once made our handling problem easy by giving the operator a new arrangement job. Perfectly possible solution, not free.

Nathan, agreed. The purchase comparison should carry that work openly alongside the technical assessment, without implying a technically suitable tool is automatically the better operating choice.

Has either returned an assessment tied to its complete proposed drawing yet, Bruno?

One has returned mass properties for its complete proposal. Integrator found the hose arrangement still unspecified, so review remains open. The other supplier has not supplied the missing assembly information.

Then no winner yet. I'd like to hear whether the longer-offset option survives the review, but the catalogue sheet certainly hasn't earned the other one a pass.