Survey requested. Proposed tool outline lacks its body and fittings, so no complete route can be assessed yet.

Can the toolmaker identify the intended grip orientation in that request, even while the full dimensions are outstanding?

Include the route back to the source as well. Moving the base to make the machine approach look comfortable can create a worse transfer elsewhere, so a local clearance improvement needs the complete sequence around it.

Grip orientation is proposed, not reviewed. I've included source return with the machine approach and exit in the scope.

Who operates and changes the fixture after handover? Add that person's access requirements before the open door and robot claim all the apparently free space in the drawing.

That also includes service access, Jamie. I'd ask the machine owner and setter to mark it on the same survey. Their requirements shouldn't be a separate sketch that disappears when the integrator moves the base.

Rachel, yes, and distinguish routine changeover from maintenance access so the owners can explain when each is needed. A single access needed note can be too vague for a designer to preserve.

Machine owner and setter have those questions. No base move proposed. Toolmaker still assembling the full outline.

Does anything already clash in the known geometry, or is the main finding still that the tool is undefined?

A definite clash in an incomplete drawing can be useful, but an absence of clashes can't be promoted to clearance when the omitted body occupies unknown space. Keep those conclusions separate.

Undefined tool is the finding so far. No established clash and no demonstrated clearance. Purchasing still has no access-based recommendation.

Keep the operator's checking and recovery needs in the wider application review too. A complete automatic route won't by itself describe what they may inspect or do after an interrupted exchange.

That shouldn't require Daniel to invent the recovery procedure now. Have the responsible designers define the access needs and boundaries, then check that a proposed layout can accommodate them under the cell's engineered arrangements.

Agreed. I'm gathering required access, not authorising recovery actions. Complete tool drawing and integrator review remain outstanding.

Will the returned drawing carry an assembly revision so future fitting changes trigger another look at those clearances?

Yes, that needs an owner in the handover. An otherwise useful survey can go stale when a replacement connection is fitted and nobody recognises that the route review described a different assembly.

Ask the integrator to state the assembly and machine conditions their findings cover. That gives maintenance something concrete to compare after a change instead of a generic document called FR5 access approved.

Added to the request. Thanks, Henry; revision ownership was missing. We're still defining the review inputs, not selecting the arm.