We have tool dimensions, not a finished model. Door position is from the brochure.

Get the actual door condition into the comparison too... improving the tool outline won't rescue a convenient but wrong opening.

We had a removal study where the loaded tool cleared and the empty return route did not. Ask the designer to include both. A point at the fixture is useful for describing the task, not for establishing the whole movement.

Asked for both routes. Machine lead is checking the door information before the designer compares base positions.

Does the proposed base area also get used by the setter? I'd have them mark it now, otherwise the first promising robot position can turn into somebody else's blocked workplace

Include service access as well, with the people responsible specifying what they need rather than a guessed clearance rectangle

Setter uses one of the candidate areas. No alternative chosen yet. That access requirement is now on the layout.

Can that candidate be dropped now, or is its size and exact position still a proposal?

Jo, I'd have the designer review the known overlap with the setter before declaring every nearby position unusable. Dinesh has identified a requirement, not necessarily rejected the whole side of the machine.

Agreed. Asked too broadly. I meant whether that drawn candidate survives, not the entire side.

The drawn candidate is being revised. Thanks Chloe for the setter question. The full tool and verified door are still needed before an arm choice.

Keep the revised position identified separately; don't let it inherit a favourable result from a route checked at the old position

And let the setter see the revision before it's called finished; a small base move can matter quite a lot to the person bringing a fixture through that space