After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.

@OliverBrooks0798 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.

Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

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.

Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@HenryBarnes0525 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.

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

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

A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.

Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

@OliverBrooks0798 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.

@HenryBarnes0525 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.

I'll include empty and loaded tool outlines. We also need to agree who owns the machine signals; that part of the quote is vague.

@OliverBrooks0798 Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

Machine ready means safe to enter, doesn't it? The sales wording makes them sound alike.

Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.

Measured access review first, then an arm decision. I've settled on that route; choosing the arm depends on a workable full-tool layout and qualified assessment.

@OliverBrooks0798 Using an assessed layout as the condition gives the selection a clear basis beyond the reach sketch.