Which tool states belong in our FR10 polymer-blank exchange model?

Setter supplied the open-door survey and fixture-change route. Tooling has a closed assembly only; the open state and rear fitting are still being defined. Both omissions are named in the request.

Then the arm-position comparison stays provisional. I'd also ask whether either stand already blocks required access. No point waiting for a tool model to reject a place somebody can't work around.

One candidate blocks the setter's fixture-removal trolley and is out. The other leaves that route available, but we still need the complete tool passage through its opening.

Keep the rejected candidate on the marked survey. A later drawing author may otherwise think that empty patch of floor is an option nobody considered.

Does the remaining candidate also allow the maintenance access required by the machine team?

Nadia, yes, that needs answering separately. Setter access and maintenance access aren't automatically the same space just because both belong to people rather than the robot.

Maintenance marked its required panel access. It is retained in the remaining candidate. Complete tool model has now arrived and the integrator found a return conflict at the door linkage.

Ask whether another route or assembly option is being compared, with those access requirements retained. Finding one collision doesn't itself choose which part of the proposal should change.

Integrator is comparing a revised orientation using the same identified tool, not moving the stand into either reserved access area. Tooling has accepted the intended grip in that orientation; the full route review is still open.

Who will combine the final route answer with the setter and maintenance comments before purchasing chooses the stand? Your individual checks need to refer to the same candidate revision.