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.

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.

A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle

You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.

@CallumBell0621 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.

@JaneBrown0945 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.

Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.

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

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.

@CallumBell0621 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.