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.

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.

@CarlaBell0662 A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

@NaomiArcher0419 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.

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.

@NaomiArcher0419 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

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

@CarlaBell0662 Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

@MayaArcher0388 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?

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.

Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer

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

@CarlaBell0662 Name whoever owns the interface work. Otherwise the robot and machine contacts can both think the other has covered fixture state and permission to enter.

@AnnaBaker0503 Machine ready means safe to enter, doesn't it? The sales wording makes them sound alike.

A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.

Would a supervised trial with a representative fixture let us make useful progress on geometry while the machine interface responsibilities are still being defined?

@CarlaBell0662 Yes, under a suitable supervised test plan. Keep the demonstrated mount and tool details, and describe the result as geometry evidence with the machine interface still outstanding.