The lower layer is drawn but the bearing areas aren't overlaid; tooling shows carrying only, so neither point has a proper answer yet.

Which areas does packaging say must bear, Kai?

Mina, did your team change the tool or the pattern after that opening problem? I would not assume either route is cheaper for Kai without seeing his arrangement.

Our comparison was still open when I described it. No accepted replacement from me. I'm pointing out the competing requirement, not recommending our unfinished arrangement.

Rick, the packed carton needs its reinforced ends supported; packaging is marking those regions on the lower layer and pallet views now.

Have them identify the allowed partial loads too, if dispatch needs them. A reinforced end over another carton in the full-layer picture can end up over nothing on an incomplete load

Packaging rejected the current rotated row on the normal full load because both end regions cross gaps; the integrator has proposed a lower-count unrotated row for the joint review.

Does dispatch accept the lower count, including the extra pallet movements?

That's the cost I wouldn't leave out. If the alternative needs more pallets, somebody moves and stores them. It isn't just a different rectangle pattern with the same throughput pasted underneath.

Has the alternative's tool opening actually been checked yet, Kai? That remains separate from dispatch accepting its count.

Dispatch will consider the extra movements but wants them costed; tooling has found the first placement accessible and is still checking the last, so the alternative remains provisional.

Then the original row is rejected for a stated support reason and the replacement has two live questions. That is already a useful purchasing decision; you needn't label the replacement approved just to make the review end with a green box