The torch model is available from the tooling supplier. Our clamp model is older than the workshop fixture. I will get that discrepancy addressed first.

Have the fixture owner identify the current arrangement explicitly, Jo, including handle positions where they affect access; otherwise updating the CAD may just replace one unverified drawing with another.

Not for the inside corners. The sketch uses the same torch orientation everywhere. I have asked our welding specialist for the process requirements before the next offline review.

That gives the integrator something meaningful to test, and it gives you a way to distinguish an access limitation from a path someone simply has not developed yet.

Which corner is doubtful with the actual clamp model, rather than the old sketch?

The rear inside corner. The updated clamp handle occupies space beside the nozzle at the required orientation. Integrator has flagged it for fixture review.

Would a revised clamp arrangement be possible there? Only a candidate for the fixture designer, since moving a clamp can alter restraint as well as access.

And keep loading and clamp operation in that discussion, Sofia; a handle moved out of the torch path may still end up unpleasantly placed for the person loading brackets.

Sofia and Clara, our fixture designer is considering a different handle arrangement and will check loading access. No replacement clamp design has been accepted. The rear corner remains unresolved.

Will the next comparison include the torch's entry and exit at that corner, Jo? Moving the handle away from the welding pose may leave the same obstruction on departure.

Yes. Entry, seam travel and withdrawal are in the requested offline comparison. Process qualification and cell assessment remain separate work; this review has only exposed the access problem.