Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.

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.

A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.

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.

@RebeccaBrown0952 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

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

Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

@OliverBrooks0798 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.

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

Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.

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 add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

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.

@RebeccaBrown0952 I've decided to base our arm selection on a measured access review. A workable layout for the complete tool and a qualified assessment will be conditions of choosing the arm.

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