Not yet. The arrow is all we have, so the neat drawing does not tell us whether its gaps are permissible.

I have another case where packaging requires two end regions and the rotated positions miss one. That is not a rule to copy onto yours. Get their requirement for your contents and insert, then show the actual support underneath.

Carla's example is why I'd want the lower layer drawn with the pallet, not a highlighted upper rectangle floating in space. And the complete hand has to get back out after placing it. A supported carton can still trap the proposed fingers.

Will the same drawing show the permitted partly completed loads, Imran?

Name the person reconciling those views. Otherwise packaging can approve one revision while the integrator quietly moves a row in another.

The project engineer owns one revision for packaging and tooling, including our permitted short orders. Packaging has now specified continuous bearing beneath two longitudinal strips.

Then check where those strips land in each allowed layer and short load. My end-region example is no substitute. Has the engineer marked any position that fails your actual requirement?

The rotated arrangement leaves a strip unsupported. A straight-row candidate supports both strips, but its narrow row gap obstructs open-finger withdrawal. Neither candidate is accepted.

That's two different failures, worth keeping separate. A lower count might create tool space, but only a proposed layout can show whether it preserves the bearing underneath. Don't approve an imaginary wider gap before somebody draws the rows it displaces.

We've stopped costing the alternating arrangement as the selected design. The engineer is developing a lower-count candidate; support, tool movement and dispatch handling remain to be assessed together.