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

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.

@EmmaBarnes0550 Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

@PriyaArcher0394 A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

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

@ReeceBarnes0558 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.

@EmmaBarnes0550 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.

@CarlaArcher0401 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.

@EmmaBarnes0550 Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

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.

Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer.