The held position is now defined. Adapter and connection fittings are still separate drawings. Door survey hasn't been completed, so the apparent opening remains a brochure dimension.

Then those are the missing inputs, not evidence for or against the FR5. I would keep the purchase provisional until the installed opening and assembled tool are actually compared. A brochure cannot tell you where your door stay is.

The combined model is ready now. Survey found the stay projects into the entry path; the integrator proposes an offset approach. I mean a layout candidate, not a taught correction to a running job.

Has the toolmaker checked that candidate against the intended grip and release?

And preserve the full empty withdrawal. It's tempting to celebrate the loaded approach clearing and forget the fingers need to open and leave afterwards.

Toolmaker checked grip and release, and the model includes the empty withdrawal. Those movements clear in the revised candidate. We still have the setter-access review and complete load assessment outstanding.

Who records the final tool arrangement if either review changes it, Harish? I'd like stores ordering replacements against the assessed assembly, not the first adapter drawing that happened to arrive.

Integrator owns that record, Jonas, with the toolmaker's identified assembly. Setter review is now complete without a space conflict. The load assessment is still pending, so FR5 remains a candidate despite the better access result.

Thanks for separating the access result from the arm choice. The remaining question is clear.