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.

Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.

@AdaArcher0390 Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

@JuliaChen1196 Going larger should open up mounting options. It might be the most straightforward option to explore.

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

You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.

@AdaArcher0390 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

@JuliaArcher0413 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.

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

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.

@AdaArcher0390 The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

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.

For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

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

@JuliaChen1196 Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state

@MeiArcher0429 I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?

@JoFixtures Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.

@AdaArcher0390 Can we trial representative fixture geometry while the interface scope is still open? I'd like to move the access question along.

It can, with an appropriate supervised procedure. Record the actual tool and mount, and make clear that the trial addresses geometry while interface work remains open.