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

@ZaraBarnes0569 Use that measured layout to review the complete approach and retreat offline. Include the tool, cables and service access, then ask the integrator to assess a revised mounting arrangement.

@ElliotBrown0944 Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

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

Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle.

@DineshAllen0299 Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@ElliotBrown0944 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

@JuliaChen1196 Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

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.

@ElliotBrown0944 Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

Yes. Include the required entry direction and withdrawal conditions, not just an end pose. A reachable point can still have no usable approach with the proposed tool.

For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

I'll add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?

A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.

@ElliotBrown0944 Measured access review first, then an arm decision. I've settled on that route; choosing the arm depends on a workable full-tool layout and qualified assessment.

@ZaraBarnes0569 That puts the access question in the right place in the decision. A conditional selection fits the limits of the sketch.