Who checks FR10 withdrawal after the brass blank clears the fixture?

They propose moving the stand outward. Machine owner hasn't reviewed it. I have asked for both the present candidate and proposed position in the same comparison.

Keep the adapter in both assemblies too, because moving the stand to clear a missing chunk of tool is a surprisingly expensive way to discover the export was incomplete

And keep the blank held in its proposed orientation. We had an access picture that looked generous because the part had been turned to face the reader. The attractive view was not the grip position the fixture required.

Jo, adapter is included in the new export. Will, held orientation matches the proposed grip. The door sweep and handle are still the missing geometry; I am not filling those in by eye.

Will, did correcting that view rule out your location, or did tooling have a workable alternative? Curious how much the missing orientation changed the decision.

It ruled out that candidate in our comparison. We kept the other location for a fuller review. Not saying Mia's will do the same; just don't let presentation in the drawing choose the answer.

Ask who updates the operator access and maintenance layout if the farther stand survives, Mia, because the robot's route isn't the only route that moves with it

Integrator owns the combined layout with our setter and maintenance lead reviewing it. The original position now has a documented withdrawal conflict; the farther candidate remains under review, not selected.

Has the farther candidate cleared those checks now, Mia? Interested whether you kept this arm in the comparison or still have the whole layout undecided.