We have a gripper body drawing and generic fingers. Adapter still just a quote line. The machine opening is from the brochure, so that needs an installed survey too.

Then get the integrator to own those missing inputs together. Our separate door review stalled while everyone waited politely for everyone else's drawing. Toolmaker's assembly and machine lead's actual geometry need a named combined review, not two statements saying looks possible

Integrator has accepted that responsibility. Toolmaker is defining the complete loaded and open states; machine lead is measuring the installed door and fixture position.

I'd bring the setter into that measurement visit. They can show the normal fixture change and where they need to stand, which is much cheaper to discuss while the base is still a rectangle on paper than after it occupies their usual access.

And check the empty return. Its fingers may be open, unlike the loaded pose.

The new route shows the loaded blank clearing. Open-finger return fouls the door-side projection. Setter also needs that side for fixture removal, so simply moving the base there is not a free fix.

Has anyone actually proposed moving the base, or is that an option you want excluded? Different instructions for the designer.

It was the integrator's first alternative in the review. Setter rejected that position for fixture access. The toolmaker is considering a different finger arrangement within the original base position.

Toolmaker returned a revised candidate, but its release position has changed as well as its outline. The next combined check must use that actual sequence. Original quoted arrangement remains rejected; revised one not accepted yet.

Thanks for saying what changed, Mei. A new outline would be easy to drop into the old path and accidentally test an assembly that nobody is proposing any more. Keep the setter's rejected base position in the record too.