My available files include the complete torch drawing and clamp model, but the layout pack contains no process orientation requirements. Its assessment currently addresses reach alone

@AmyBrooks0815 Have the welding engineer specify the required orientations, then include the actual torch assembly in the offline model. That creates a basis for assessing clearance.

The proposed additions still need approach, withdrawal and cable-envelope coverage. A convincing clearance image at one pose doesn't establish those aspects of access.

You're right; I described too narrow a check. Include approach, withdrawal, mounting hardware and the cable-routing envelope in the offline access review.

Who supplies the cable envelope? The torch drawing shows connectors but doesn't define the routed shape

@AmyBrooks0815 The integrator should coordinate the routing information with the equipment supplier and identify the assumptions used. Until defined, the cable path remains a limitation of the model.

On my separate welding layout, the tool model was complete but the extraction hardware wasn't there. We had a beautiful answer to an incomplete question

Our extraction equipment is missing too. I'll add it to the model inventory rather than trust that empty space in the screenshot

@AmyBrooks0815 Could an obstructing clamp simply be relocated to create the required torch access?

@IsabelBell0648 It has a workholding job as well. Your fixture designer and welding engineer need to assess whether a proposed move still supports the assembly and process.

With the complete torch model, I can see a clamp conflict at an orientation the welding engineer requires. That's a specific review item now

Keep that required orientation attached to the image. Otherwise someone may rotate the torch until it clears and think they've solved your process question.

I'll attach the welding orientation requirement to the view, so a clearance result can't be interpreted independently of the process condition it must satisfy

Ask the specialists to compare fixture orientations or another reviewed positioning concept offline. Each option needs both workholding and process acceptance.

Could a robot with greater nominal reach resolve the access conflict you're discussing?

@IsabelBell0648 Not automatically. Your identified problem is a torch-and-clamp conflict at a required orientation. More nominal reach alone doesn't establish clearance there.

For my separate layout, alternative fixture orientations needed loading-access review too. A favourable view of the weld position didn't establish suitability of the complete arrangement

@EmmaBennett0724 Should loading and maintenance space go into this model request too, even though my immediate problem is the inside corner?

@AmyBrooks0815 Yes. Include them with extraction and screening in the qualified cell review. They can constrain which of the proposed layouts is usable.