Why does the tooling quote assume our mill has no door?

I've requested those views. The supplier says the gripper is still a concept, so its body dimensions are not settled. That seems a large unknown to omit from an arm recommendation.

Use a conservative proposed envelope for screening and label it provisional, then repeat the assessment with the final tool; don't silently turn a concept into confirmed clearance.

They've provided a maximum proposed tool envelope. I can now see why the empty wrist view looked generous. The adapter and valve block occupy much of that apparent space.

Have the supplier check the intermediate poses too, since clear endpoints can still have an obstructed route between them.

What did you actually find against the door: a clash, or clearance that has not been checked?

Useful distinction; a crowded drawing is a reason to investigate, not a collision report.

Does the envelope include the polymer blank after removal? I mean the orientation it has on withdrawal, not just its position in the fixture.

Unchecked clearance, not a confirmed clash. Thank you for catching that. The held blank is shown at pickup only; I've asked for its withdrawal orientation and the intermediate poses before reporting a result.

And include maintenance access, but get those spaces from the people using the machine rather than inventing comfortable-looking rectangles.

Operators and maintenance have marked their access on the layout. The supplier found a route that appears feasible with the proposed envelope, but the tool dimensions remain provisional. Our recommendation will carry that condition explicitly.

Tie that condition to a required final review before purchase acceptance; otherwise provisional has a habit of disappearing when the drawing gets forwarded.

Is the final review assigned to a person and a tool revision? A condition without that link may survive in the document but never get acted on.