They're on it already Aaron. I need a way to compare options on that drawing, not another version of the same warning.

We lost a supposedly better layer when changeovers were included, so I'd keep the current arrangement on the sheet beside each proposal, with the same filled cases and the real packing order rather than compare two tidy finished pictures

Rebecca, include the half-finished load too. That's what somebody has to recognise coming back from a stop.

I would be wary of making a sheet option disappear just because it loses a few seconds. In our measurements, the fast-looking arrangement was not automatically the best overall job. That doesn't establish anything about your cartons, but it does make me want packaging's assessment before deciding which candidate is too slow.

Felix, I meant count the work, not reject sheets; if someone has to fetch and replenish them, that belongs in the comparison alongside any support benefit

Rebecca's numbered sketch helped, cheers. One place that's clear in the finished drawing is blocked by its neighbour at the proposed release step. Tooling has agreed it's a candidate change, not a signed-off route.

Does reversing that bit of the order help? Or does it just move the blocked release somewhere else?

It moves the problem. We're keeping two options for review now: changed tool opening, or an arrangement with sheets. Neither has packaging approval yet.

Callum, fair enough, I read a preference into your post that wasn't there. The refill work is exactly the sort of thing I'd want recorded rather than silently assigned to whoever is nearest.

And who clears an abandoned partial pallet under the agreed procedure? Don't leave that for training week.

Keep the rejected sequence sketch. Otherwise someone can rediscover the same attractive finished picture at the next cost review.

Both options are on one review sheet now, including replenishment and partial loads. Still waiting on packaging. At least we're finally arguing about the same arrangement.