Not for this layer. Their note identifies an internal tray carrying the components, but the pattern designer used only the outside dimensions. I have asked packaging to relate that internal support to the layer below.

Then preferred doesn't yet mean forbidden in the other direction. I wouldn't stamp it good either. Need the filled case assessed, not everyone reading a different rule into one arrow.

I thought the gaps already ruled it out. Is the internal tray able to span them, or is that still only a possibility?

Still a possibility, Felix. I was pushing back on certainty, not granting permission. Packaging has to answer for this packed case and this arrangement.

Oliver, it's a top-contact tool, and the integrator is checking its body and connections through the sequence. No side fingers proposed. Packaging has requested filled samples of the actual case and internal tray for its assessment.

Are partial layers in their assessment too?

Any finding from those samples, Isabel? I'm interested in whether the preferred-direction note turns into a defined limit or simply remains a reason to avoid the pattern.

Packaging permits the specific bridging on this drawing with the identified internal tray and packing arrangement. They've supplied the assessment and its limits, not permission for any similar-looking case. Sam, the agreed partial-layer arrangements are included.

That's the missing distinction. Bare gap looked alarming, but now there's an explanation of what carries the load. Don't let stores substitute the inner tray because the outside box stayed the same.

Who owns that packing identity at changeover? I'd put it where the packer checks the job, since a restriction hidden in the robot purchase folder won't stop a perfectly reasonable-looking substitute.

Dispatch owns the packed-product specification and will check the inner-tray reference at changeover. Tooling's sequence review also found the tool body clear, with the defined placement order. We still need the joint practical assessment before selecting it.

What happens for a part-used pallet after an interruption? A permitted partial layer isn't automatically a known restart position.

That goes to our authorised pallet-state reconciliation, not a guessed next carton. The joint assessment includes interrupted arrangements as presented conditions; recovery logic and operator authority remain separately reviewed application requirements.

Did the actual release leave the packed cases undisturbed?

Yes, in the agreed supervised assessment. Packaging checked the filled arrangements and tooling demonstrated release without disturbing neighbours. The records identify the cartons, inner trays, load conditions and sequence used.

We've selected this alternating pattern within that assessed scope. Thank you, Felix Bell, for separating unknown bridging from proven failure early on; it kept us from redesigning around a rule packaging hadn't actually stated. Other carton constructions need another review.