Grip depth is defined. The toolmaker has a gripper and finger drawing, but the adapter and rear fittings aren't assembled into it. Door dimensions come from the machine brochure, not an installed survey.

Have the integrator join the supplier inputs with a measured machine view. Include entry, grip, withdrawal and return. A sequence is easier to question when the tool doesn't change shape between drawings.

Integrator owns the combined model now. Machine lead has surveyed the open door and fixture. Toolmaker is completing the adapter and fittings, so we have only half the missing geometry back.

Does the proposed base position also serve the receiving tray without crossing the setter's working area? A comfortable machine approach can transfer the awkward part of the job to the next movement rather than remove it.

And establish the setter's actual fixture-removal task, Chris. Space to stand beside the opening is not necessarily room to bring the fixture out and turn it onto a trolley.

Has the integrator proposed another route with the toolmaker's same held position, or would avoiding the handle require a different grip? Those are not equivalent changes to the assessment.

They propose a different base position with the same grip. Machine approach clears in that candidate, but the receiving-tray path and trolley access are still being assessed. I haven't moved the tray in our requirements to make it look easier.

Keep the original tray location visible while comparing that candidate. If moving it later becomes necessary, price and review the operator's changed task rather than treating the new location as free space.

Any result on that receiving route now, Chris? That is where I would expect the second position to earn its place or lose it.

The second position clears the receiving route and the defined trolley task in the combined review. Complete assembly load assessment remains pending. We have a viable access candidate now, not a finished arm-selection decision.