No agreed support conditions yet. The preferred direction is known, but the drawing hasn't translated that into allowed positions. Tool access was reviewed separately.

Then the drawing has an unanswered support question. It has not proved the cartons will fail. I'd use that wording when asking for the review.

Could the turned positions simply be removed for the first arrangement? Lower count, fewer awkward spaces. Worth comparing before somebody designs new tooling around a pattern they don't need.

Only if the reduced arrangement still meets dispatch's needs, since a lower count may mean another pallet rather than a free simplification

And the reduced pattern still needs its own release check. I have asked for withdrawal views on similar reviews because the final positions alone left that unanswered.

The count matters to dispatch. I'll compare a reduced arrangement, but I'm not calling it the solution until the packaging and shipping consequences are visible.

Fair enough. Packaging may also have an alternative support arrangement. Ask them to state the requirements before treating removal as the only option.

Yes, I jumped straight to fewer cartons. Put that down as one candidate, not my diagnosis of the design.

We have a shared annotated view now. Packaging has marked the support questions; tooling has marked where opening and withdrawal need checking. Neither has accepted the alternating layout.

Can the person who changes over the station read that view without one of the designers explaining it? That may expose a missing orientation detail.

Ask that person about the last incomplete layer too, not just the full one everybody has spent a week discussing

Jamie, that is useful, but do not ask the setter to decide allowable carton support. Packaging still owns the technical judgement.

Agreed, I want their actual interruption conditions, not their signature in place of packaging's assessment

The setter identified an incomplete-layer condition missing from our notes. It's added for review. Thanks, Sara; I would have handed over the full-layer picture and missed that conversation.

Has the integrator included how the selected layer is identified after an interruption? Not asking you to solve that here, just checking it hasn't fallen between drawing and controls.

Not yet. I have left that with the integrator alongside the open support and withdrawal questions. We aren't at an operating instruction yet.