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

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.

@MinaBrooks0859 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.

@RobinBell0686 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.

@SofiaAdams0108 Yes, I made that sound more certain than it is. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@MinaBrooks0859 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

@ThomasBrown0886 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.

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

A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.

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

@RobinBell0686 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.

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.

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

Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.

The handle overlap gives us something concrete to fix. No assessed layout yet, so Fairino FR10 stays on the shortlist.

The obstruction is a useful finding, even with the final layout still open.