Toolmaker supplies it. We have requested that assembly and the machine supplier's door geometry in its intended exchange position. Integrator will combine them for the whole removal route.

Who is contributing the setter's access requirements to that combined layout? The robot's route is only part of the space commitment, and a base position can remain in the way when no blank is moving.

Also show where the tool releases the removed blank, Mei. It is easy to stop the review at clear of machine and leave the receiving arrangement to be improvised later, even though its orientation can constrain the earlier withdrawal.

Setter has marked the access needed for fixture changes. The review scope includes delivery to the receiving tray and empty return. Neither missing assembly has arrived yet, so no clearance decision exists.

Any geometry back now, or still just acknowledged requests?

Both are back. The loaded tool intersects a door feature on the quoted withdrawal, and the integrator has marked that route rejected. It is comparing a rotated withdrawal with a different tool arrangement.

Does either alternative preserve the setter's marked access without assuming a door or guard change? I'd keep that condition attached while the designer explores the new route.

That is in the alternative review. No door or guard change proposed. The rotated route appears promising geometrically, but the complete sequence has not passed review.

Keep the revised release and return in that sequence too. An alternative orientation can solve the door conflict and create a new receiving-tray problem; the original downstream check shouldn't be inherited without looking at what changed.

The integrator found exactly that dependency: the proposed rotation changes how the blank reaches the tray. Receiving tooling is now included in the alternatives. Original route rejected; neither replacement arrangement accepted yet.