Both loaded ends on the turned outer row; packaging's section uses the earlier lower layer, before tooling widened the withdrawal gaps.

That version mismatch is familiar: put both constraints on the same revision before another agreeable meeting produces two incompatible approvals.

Has packaging seen the actual widened gaps beneath a filled case? I would establish that before asking them to approve a different pattern.

Nina's last point belongs in the operator review. A good pattern for one construction is an awkward lesson if dispatch cannot tell which case it applies to.

Packaging rejected the widened-gap turns after the filled-case review; straight rows preserve support, but tooling has not completed the withdrawal sequence for them.

Does the straight option change the normal short-order ending?

Include the return to a partial pallet too. Ours looked straightforward until the next order needed the fingers to leave beside a case already there. A complete-layer picture missed that ordinary continuation.

Who identifies that returned partial pallet on the covering shift?

Simon, yes, and don't turn it into an invented edge case just because the animation starts empty. Mina, does dispatch actually return partial pallets here?

Yes, dispatch returns them between small orders; we have added those continuations and the common stopping quantities to the tooling brief.

Then the lower count needs a whole-order cost. Extra pallet exchanges might matter more than the slower-looking pattern.

Morgan, I would have the covering packer try the proposed identification during that review. Mina still needs a procedure they can actually perform, rather than a planner declaring the pallet obvious.

Tooling found a blocked withdrawal on one returned partial arrangement; that continuation is being revised, and the covering packer rejected the first label because it omitted the case construction.

Useful that the label was tried now. Have receiving use the same construction distinction so the wrong case does not arrive at dispatch already carrying a plausible job label.

Receiving and dispatch now share the construction reference; the revised partial-pallet route is still under review, so no final count or purchase decision.

Does the revised route need a temporary case position, Mina, or can it finish within the pallet? That would change the workstation review.