Process engineer has supplied the intended approach. The full torch at that angle overlaps the handle. Integrator had tilted it away in the first illustration without asking them.

That needs a joint decision, then. A shorter handle might be possible, but somebody has to check the clamp still works and can be operated. Don't make the access drawing its only job.

Can the operator reach that handle during loading? The torch is not the only thing that needs space around the fixture.

Hana, did the fixture designer offer another arrangement? I'm interested whether you can move the clamp without changing how the bracket is held.

Liam, loading access is awkward already. Omar, the designer proposes clamping from the other side, keeping the intended locating faces. Process and tooling are comparing that arrangement; it is not an approved change yet.

Include the loaded and unloaded states in that comparison. I mean the clamp open for loading too, not just a closed clamp that misses the torch.

And fixture removal for maintenance. We had a design that could be loaded comfortably but could not be lifted out with its normal handling arrangement.

The opposite-side clamp arrangement clears the complete torch through the proposed approach and withdrawal. Tooling has accepted the restraint concept. Operator walkthrough found the open handle obstructing the normal loading support, so it still needs work.

Designer has proposed a different handle position with the same clamping arrangement. We have not checked that revision yet. Liam, the fixture-removal view is also missing from this issue, and I have asked for it before the next review.

Did the new handle leave room for the loading support, Hana? That sounds like the remaining everyday snag, even if the torch can now get in.