I've seen a pallet discussion gather useful drawings while the packaging decision stayed missing. On this FR10 proposal, rotated cartons bridge gaps against their support direction. What shared views and evidence should let packaging judge that support alongside the gripper's release, before I accept the pattern?
Use sections through the questionable support positions and layer-over-layer views, with the required bearing areas identified by packaging. Overlay the actual tool states and movement. Add the packed-carton construction and proposed stack conditions so the support judgement has a defined subject.
I've requested that set. Packaging has the filled-carton specification; tooling currently shows carrying only. I have kept release and withdrawal explicit in the outstanding list rather than assume the new drawing will include them.
That carrying-only gap sounds familiar from my own review. Ask who supplies each missing state and when. We had enough material to explain the problem before we had enough to approve anything.
Grace's question belongs with the samples used for assessment too. A correct specification doesn't establish that the test cartons were packed that way, particularly if the orientation isn't visible once sealed.
The packing supervisor is checking that before supplying samples. Integrator owns the combined views. Nothing approved yet; at least the remaining packaging question is now tied to actual packed cartons and a defined tool sequence.