They have now marked the bearing ends. One rotated row leaves an end unsupported. Packaging has not accepted that position, and the open tool is still missing from the same view.

Get that one placement drawn among the cartons already there, Luca, then you can discuss support and the hand leaving without buying a grand simulation of an arrangement nobody has defined properly yet

Have the integrator own the common drawing revision and ask dispatch to define the permitted partial orders, since the last incomplete layer is part of the job somebody must hand over.

Integrator owns it. Dispatch allows a lower count if the pallet-space cost is included. The designer is comparing an aligned arrangement; no sheet or new gripper has been proposed.

An aligned candidate still needs its tool exit checked; support improving doesn't provide clearance.

Has dispatch shown where the additional pallets would wait? The handling cost can change if a lower count moves the waiting area away from the packer.

They costed that movement. The lower-count candidate improves support and the complete tool can release in the reviewed sequence, but the additional pallet handling removes the labour saving on our actual order mix.

Then keeping the manual arrangement is an option worth pricing honestly, not evidence that the review failed because the robot motion looked promising

We have deferred this palletising purchase. The original support conflict is real, and the viable lower-count candidate doesn't justify its cost for our current orders. Records retained in case the workload changes, not a request for another unbudgeted tool redesign.

Keep the assessed candidate and the workload behind that decision together, so a future enquiry can reconsider changed orders without presenting the same present-day saving you have just ruled out.