Integrator has those stages in the scope. Tool supplier returned the body and fingers, but the adapter and rear connection are still generic outlines. The door survey shows its actual parked position.

Which clearance are they claiming from the generic outlines? I'd keep that claim provisional until the occupied shape is identified, especially if the connection is near the doorway.

They had marked the doorway clear. I've asked them to withdraw that conclusion until the complete assembly is represented; there is no reason to assume the generic connection is conservative.

Has the complete connection geometry arrived now, and did it change the doorway result?

It arrived and the revised model still clears the doorway at the reviewed pose. The full extraction route exposed a different conflict between the held blank and a fixture feature, so the overall arrangement is not accepted.

That is why the stages matter. Does their alternative change the grip on the blank or the removal orientation? Either needs a fresh assessment, not the old doorway tick copied onto it.

They propose another removal orientation with the same grip depth. It remains a candidate for full route and load review; the original arrangement is withdrawn, and arm selection stays open.

Keep the failed fixture-clearance state with that candidate review, so the revised route answers the actual conflict rather than only returning through the already-clear doorway.