Rotated cartons resting across the bottom flap gap

Grace and David, there are two stock codes. Same outside dimensions, different bottom folds. The integrator's model names the older code; most of our current stock is the other one.

Keep both on the table then. Our packing comparison got too simple until we included the mixed orders people actually send. A drawing for one carton won't cover a mixed stockroom.

Could the station be restricted to one code, Chloe, or would that simply move sorting work to the packer? That is an option to cost, not a restriction to assume.

Noah, I would distinguish mixed orders from mixed carton construction here; you can have one without the other, and the support question follows the box construction.

Yes, I meant both stock codes in her comparison. Not that every order contains both.

We asked dispatch about restricting the code. They can't do it from the order list because either carton is currently used for the same product. They could sort physical stock, but we'd need to pay for that task.

Would purchasing consider one carton specification for future orders, while you use up the other stock outside this proposed cell? Might be less faff than permanent sorting, though packaging would need to accept the choice

And include the cost of the leftover stock route, David. A future standard carton is useful, but it does not make the existing cartons disappear.

Chloe, has anyone built the proposed contact arrangement with both packed samples yet? The stock discussion still leaves that original gap unexplained.

Yes. Packaging rejected the proposed rotated arrangement for the recessed-bottom code after reviewing the packed sample and support. The older code remains a candidate. Tooling has the same two samples and the marked layer drawing now.

For the outside-cell route, count fetching the right cartons as well as stacking them. That small walk vanished from our first manual estimate.

Purchasing priced David's suggestion. We will standardise future orders on the older construction, subject to the full packaging approval, and finish the recessed stock on the existing manual route. The cost sheet includes that temporary split.

The combined review also found the proposed fingers can't withdraw from the older-code pattern as drawn. So carton choice has moved forward, but the layer still isn't agreed. Tooling is revising its proposal.

At least the next drawing can start with a known carton bottom. I'd be interested whether they need different fingers or just a different layer, because those send the cost comparison in rather different directions