The FR10 layout has a tool centre and no tool

Finger drawing only; body, fittings and services are absent.

Ask for the assembled tool outline with the part held and the fingers open. The reviewer also needs the actual door position and the planned exchange sequence.

Requested; the door has a projecting handle that the machine outline also omits.

Has the supplier measured the handle and door stop, or will someone at your workshop provide that?

A farther position may help, but the current sketch does not show whether the complete arm and tool can perform the exchange from there.

I'd explore the farther position too. Our teaching layout improved when we stopped trying to preserve the first stand location. But take the whole tool into that study; ours gained a spacer during commissioning and suddenly the old drawing was optimistic again.

Two base candidates are now in the request, using the same full tool model when supplied; our maintenance technician is measuring the actual door assembly.

The sequence turns the loaded tool inside before withdrawal, which is absent from the reach illustration.

That turn needs to be included in the motion study. Two reachable endpoints will not show the space used between them.

Did the toolmaker provide the assembly yet? I'm interested in whether the fittings or the body turn out to be the awkward bit.

Assembly received; the fittings project toward the handle, so the reviewer is examining orientation as well as base position.

Does moving the stand still look worth considering?

The review report should identify which candidate and tool revision its conclusion covers, especially with several options now in discussion.

The farther stand remains viable for setup access and is the reviewer's preferred candidate; tool routing remains provisional, so selection awaits that final geometry check.