HazelBell0658 · 15 Aug 2025, 20:55 UTC
Add sections through the filled cartons and both layers. Packaging needs to see where the load actually bears, and tooling needs the release and withdrawal space on the same layout.
17 pointsPackaging has sent the base-strip drawing. Tooling has the finger gap, but only at the moment the carton is placed.
6 pointsThen get the movement after placement. A gap that accepts the fingers isn't automatically a gap they can leave through once another carton is beside them.
24 pointsKeep the packing contents in that review too. We have had two cartons with the same outer dimensions and different internal support, so the outline alone was a very persuasive distraction.
20 pointsI've added the packed section. Packaging is proposing a non-alternating pattern; dispatch dislikes the lower count, tooling hasn't checked the exit route yet.
20 pointsCould a layer sheet be another candidate, if packaging thinks it can provide the needed support? Not saying put any old sheet in there and declare victory.
13 pointsWorth asking, but include placing the sheet and handling its supply in the comparison. Otherwise dispatch gets its carton count back by handing an unpriced task to somebody else.
13 pointsPackaging will assess a specified sheet as a second option. We're keeping the lower-count pattern in the comparison rather than treating the sheet as an agreed fix
14 pointsTooling has found a withdrawal clash in the original pattern. They've proposed a finger change, now going back to packaging with the revised gaps. Neither option has a filled-load trial result yet.
20 pointsHas dispatch priced the lower-count option now? It may still be less work than revised fingers plus a sheet supply, even if it loses the beauty contest on the drawing.
15 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .