steel blank reaches the fixture, FR10 tool still undrawn

Toolmaker has sent the assembly. Machine model still shows the door shut and omits the inside handle, so we are asking the owner for those details before the route comparison.

Which assembly revision did the toolmaker send, and does it match the quoted option? I would establish that before measurements from the layout become part of the purchasing decision.

Revision B, confirmed against the quote. Actual open-door dimensions now included. The loaded adapter clashes with the handle on the first proposed approach; designer is considering a rotated approach and another base position.

We found a handle clash after adding fittings too. Keep those service bits on both alternatives, otherwise the rotated tool may only fit because someone hid its hose connection.

I would compare changing the adapter as well, if the supplier is willing to design that option. A base move can solve one clearance while consuming useful workshop space. It is not automatically the cheaper change.

Keep the complete movement in each comparison. Approach, grip and loaded withdrawal. A tool pose clear of the handle can still leave no usable route back out.

I'd want the setter looking at those base positions early. Our teaching cell review once focused so hard on where the robot could go that nobody checked where the person changing the fixture would stand. Different bodies, same doorway.

Does the alternate base position leave access to the machine's service panel? I am asking about the panel's actual removal space, not only whether its front remains visible.

We kept a trolley outline in one layout but forgot the space needed to turn it, so I would ask the setter to show the whole fixture-change route on both options rather than approve an empty rectangle beside the machine.

Can they screen the obvious obstructions with full-size outlines before detailing every candidate?

Use that for early rejection, with the provisional geometry identified. It does not replace the complete motion and application assessment required for a final choice.

Who is keeping the comparison drawing current? With the door, adapter and base all under discussion, I would want one person combining changes before anybody signs off their own corner.

Integrator owns the combined drawings. Reece, the farther base obstructs panel removal and is being revised. Fiona and Callum, setter has marked standing and trolley-turning space. Oscar's adapter alternative is also being costed.

At least those problems are still on paper.

Please include the loaded-tool assessment in the adapter comparison too. A shorter or differently shaped adapter changes the assembly, not only the handle clearance. The tool designer should check the applicable limits for the intended motion.

And confirm access to replace the fittings on the proposed adapter. A geometry fix that needs half the cell dismantled for a hose change deserves a cost of its own.

Those checks are in the revised scope. No arm or base choice accepted yet. Thank you, Reece, for the panel-removal question; the original plan showed the panel face but none of the space to take it off.

Has the setter seen the latest combined drawing, Zara? You've changed enough bits since their first comments that I'd let them have another look before the comparison closes.