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

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.

The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved

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

A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.

@CallumChen1143 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.

@LiamAdams0142 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.

Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout

@BenBarnes0544 Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.

The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

@BenBarnes0544 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.

Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer.

@LuisCarter1043 I'll include empty and loaded tool outlines. We also need to agree who owns the machine signals; that part of the quote is vague

Name whoever owns the interface work. Otherwise the robot and machine contacts can both think the other has covered fixture state and permission to enter.

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?

@LinAli0183 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.

Can we trial representative fixture geometry while the interface scope is still open? I'd like to move the access question along