My available files include the complete torch drawing and clamp model, but the layout pack contains no process orientation requirements. Its assessment currently addresses reach alone.

Have the welding engineer specify the required orientations, then include the actual torch assembly in the offline model. That creates a basis for assessing clearance.

Assessable at a pose, perhaps. You haven't mentioned getting into or out of it, or the cable envelope. Those can spoil a convincing screenshot.

That's a necessary correction to my scope. The review should cover approach and withdrawal with the mounting hardware and cable-routing envelope, as well as the process pose.

@OliverAbbott0015 Who supplies the cable envelope? The torch drawing shows connectors but doesn't define the routed shape.

The integrator should coordinate the routing information with the equipment supplier and identify the assumptions used. Until defined, the cable path remains a limitation of the model.

On my separate welding layout, the tool model was complete but the extraction hardware wasn't there. We had a beautiful answer to an incomplete question.

Our extraction equipment is missing too. I'll add it to the model inventory rather than trust that empty space in the screenshot.

Could an obstructing clamp simply be relocated to create the required torch access?

The clamp's position contributes to workholding, so moving it requires the fixture designer and welding engineer to assess the resulting assembly support and welding conditions.

With the complete torch model, I can see a clamp conflict at an orientation the welding engineer requires. That's a specific review item now.

Keep that required orientation attached to the image. Otherwise someone may rotate the torch until it clears and think they've solved your process question.

@JackAllen0341 I'll annotate the requirement on the view. I don't want a green clearance result earned by quietly changing the question.

An offline comparison of fixture orientations or an alternative positioning concept may help. The specialists should assess each option against both workholding and welding requirements.

I've got a concrete request for the integrator: real tool geometry assessed against the welding requirements offline. That settles what I needed from this discussion; accepting the access concept still depends on the assessment.

@NathanBennett0721 You've settled what to ask the integrator, with concept acceptance still dependent on assessing the actual tool against the welding requirements.