Cannot compare our FR5 brass-blank exit without the complete tool

The farther stand blocks cabinet access on the measured plan, so that candidate is out; the nearer position still lacks the final adapter and fitting geometry.

Who supplies that adapter, Chloe? It will help distinguish a missing drawing from a design decision nobody has accepted.

Tool supplier, with two possible depths proposed but neither selected; they have not shown the fittings for either yet.

Then keep two identified assemblies in the near-position review. The required movement should show where the tool is loaded, where it opens and how it returns; those states should not be assumed clear from one pose.

Where does the setter stand to change the fixture in that nearer position? It needs showing with the tool there, not in a second picture where the inconvenient bits have disappeared

Setter has marked the working position and trolley route; the stand does not overlap the parked trolley, but we still need to check its turn into that space.

A parked rectangle is a remarkably well-behaved trolley. Ask the setter to show the whole movement they actually need, including handling the fixture. That could change the remaining position before either adapter is settled.

Hassan's point is worth resolving in the common model. Don't start a separate trolley drawing that later uses a different stand position.

The trolley turn conflicts with the nearer stand. Integrator is considering a shifted version of that position, not reopening the cabinet-blocking option as if we had forgotten it.

That shift needs its own robot-route and access review. The earlier tool path does not move across the drawing unchanged simply because the stand now suits the trolley.

Does the shifted arrangement still let the setter reach the fixings, Chloe? Turning the trolley is only part of their job

That check is included with the setter; I have asked the integrator to show the actual work rather than just a clear route to the machine.

Has the tool supplier returned the fittings yet? We have made useful progress on access without answering the other half of your opening.

Not yet, Hassan; adapter options are drawn, fittings still absent, and the purchase comparison lists that as outstanding rather than treating the adapters as complete tools.

Ask who owns closing that omission and what information they need. Otherwise the access review can keep circling around an assembly nobody is finishing.

Tool supplier's designer is named and has the connection requirement; the integrator will review the returned assemblies with the shifted stand, setter and maintenance access, with no manufacture approved.

Keep the final study tied to those assembly and survey revisions. If the eventual fitting differs, it should return to the review rather than inherit a clearance statement written for the missing part.