That answer is still missing; the quote proposes a top-contact tool, so I also need its complete body and connections assessed rather than an assumed side-finger layout.

Has the proposed tool been defined beyond its contact area? A top-contact outline still leaves its body and service connections travelling among neighbours.

And keep the lower layer and pallet in the packaging view, because a visible central gap need not mean the required load-bearing regions are unsupported; the actual filled box decides that, not our instinct about rectangles.

Include permitted short orders. The finished stack can hide a support problem in the stage where an ordinary order ends.

Packaging specifies four bearing regions under the current insert; the central span may bridge within its stated limit, and the rotated positions shown retain those regions on support in the proposed full stack.

Have they checked the allowed incomplete stacks too? Full-stack support isn't the whole sequence.

Louis, that is useful evidence that the gap itself isn't your rejection criterion, while the span limit and exact bearing positions still belong on the shared drawing rather than becoming permission for any bridging.

Did the complete tool information requested earlier arrive, Louis? The support answer doesn't fill that omission.

Yes, its model includes the rear connections now; the integrator is checking the specified placement order, while packaging reviews the permitted short-load endpoints on the same revision.

Who establishes that dispatch keeps using this insert? Same outside box with different internal packing could change the support answer.

Packing specification owner maintains that insert reference, with purchasing and dispatch using it; a changed internal pack will not inherit the support assessment just because its external box dimensions match.

Any actual result from the combined sequence check yet?

Packaging accepts support through the defined full and short-load stages, and the complete tool model clears that sequence; physical filled-load verification and normal dispatch handling checks still precede acceptance.

Then retain the original alternating candidate for that next stage, rather than redesigning merely because we began with a picture containing gaps; your actual requirement supported a more specific conclusion than the arrow did.

Does dispatch have a named owner for those handling checks, including replacing the pallet at a short-order endpoint?