Our UR5e pallet sketch used empty carton outlines. Adding the packed construction shows the end supports over the gaps in the lower row. Tooling wants those gaps for withdrawal. I need the support and access questions settled together before this turns into an operator workaround.
Can packaging and tooling review the same sections through the packed cartons, lower layer and actual pallet, with the complete fingers shown through placement and withdrawal? The top view alone leaves the disagreement hidden.
They have one shared section now. Packaging's proposed shift closes the finger exit. Tooling has asked whether a separator is acceptable, but no separator specification is proposed.
Ask for a defined candidate, not an imaginary sheet. Packaging needs to assess the support it actually provides, and somebody needs to explain how it gets into the stack.
If the sheet is placed manually, where would the person do that and how would the interruption be managed? That is part of the proposed operation, not a minor note on the material list.
Pavel's alternative deserves a proper comparison. Fewer cartons per layer may cost extra handling, but extra sheet work can also be substantial. I would not rank either from capacity alone.
Sheet placement is manual in the suggestion. No location or method agreed. Integrator is comparing that complete option with a lower-count pattern, including dispatch's handling time.
Good. Do the cases still need labels facing a particular way, Jo, or can the alternative turn them freely? I wouldn't draw away a dispatch requirement by accident.
Dispatch needs a readable label on the accessible outer face. It doesn't demand one fixed direction for every carton. They've marked which faces matter for full and partial pallets.
Keep that marked requirement with the pattern options. 'Labels outward' on its own could make the next designer repeat the very rotation you're trying to reconsider.
Does the lower-count option use the present finger concept, or does it need another tool too? That affects the comparison before anyone talks about it as the simpler choice.
Present concept, but changed spacing under review. No released finger design exists yet. The comparison includes its proposed adjustment and identification, not only the carton count.
Have the setter review that adjustment and the partial-pallet handling before the handover scope is priced. The eventual instructions need to describe one approved arrangement, not leave them choosing between these provisional drawings.
And don't lose the reason the original pattern failed. A full layer that looks wonderfully dense will remain tempting when somebody only sees the top view again.