I need a pattern we can actually hand over, not just a gripper choice. Our proposed UR5e layout alternates packed rectangular product boxes, and the rotated row bridges gaps under the preferred support areas. Warehouse wants that pattern retained. Who should bring the evidence to the tooling review?
I'd ask warehouse what retaining it buys them first. Easier order picking? A known stack that fits their dispatch routine? There may be a good reason, but 'we always do it' won't help packaging work out which part can change.
Packaging still needs to explain the support limit even if warehouse has a strong operational reason. I'd put the loaded box construction and the gap positions together, then let the review compare a changed pattern with a changed support arrangement.
Warehouse says the alternating layout is the one its current pick sheets expect. It isn't claiming the boxes need that arrangement. That gives me a change to cost, rather than a physical rule I have to preserve.
Ah, that's quite different. Can the pick sheet owner join the discussion? Otherwise everyone may design around a document nobody present is allowed to alter.
I'd also resist calling new sheets the whole cost. Stores can be left with old printed copies and a new pattern on screen. A handover needs a clear changeover, especially where partial orders are still being built manually.
The review removed the original alternating proposal from our shortlist because nobody could support its rotated bearing arrangement. Warehouse agreed to evaluate a non-alternating option and retire the old sheets if it passes. We haven't selected tooling for that option yet.