Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

@RebeccaAbbott0082 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.

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

@RebeccaAbbott0082 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.

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.

@VictorChan1055 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

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?

@RebeccaAbbott0082 Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.

The information available hasn't established that the complete tool can approach the fixture usefully. I'm keeping the purchase on hold while that question remains open.

That's a clear reason to keep the decision open: the required approach hasn't been established.