Machine owner has the door survey and setter's route; toolmaker supplied only a closed outline, so open fingers, connections and grip depth are still requested.

Who combines those inputs into the layout?

Don't use the early picture for training meanwhile. Ours escaped into a lesson.

Kieran, familiar problem. Our operator spotted an impossible reach in a handout after the designer had already rejected that version. Jamie, mark the issued sketch provisional in the place people actually open it, not only in the design folder.

Toby, I own the combined review with the machine contact; Kieran and Nina, the shared sketch is marked provisional and the trainer knows the missing details.

Does the proposed grip position match the toolmaker's quoted assembly, or is that still an illustrative dimension?

Reece's question matters. A deeper grip can make the doorway view look better and change both the load assessment and release at the receiver.

Toolmaker has now identified the quoted grip and complete assembly; combined view shows the rear connection overlapping the door stop on the loaded approach.

Then compare any proposed change through the whole transfer, not only past that stop; a revised grip can leave a new clearance question at the receiving tray.

Or decide this tool is the wrong starting point. I'd compare another proper tool option before everyone spends a week moving the base around one awkward fitting.

Clara, fair, but another tool needs a price and a maintainer as well as nicer geometry. We have kept a manual route after the tidy alternative lost its saving once changeover was counted.

I have asked the toolmaker for an assessed alternative and kept the manual method in the comparison; no base movement or tool modification authorised from this failed view.

Will the alternative use the same receiving tray?

And has the toolmaker accepted that complete comparison scope, Jamie, rather than only offering to send another outline?