I want one review package for our labelled dispatch cartons before accepting the FR5 alternating pattern. The drawing fits the boxes but rotates some preferred bearing areas over gaps. How do I connect packaging's support judgement to the tool's actual release, so the resulting handover isn't two unrelated approvals?
Mark the filled-carton bearing regions over both the pallet and lower layer, then put the placement order and full tool exit on that same revision. The opening fingers need space after neighbouring cartons are present, not just on the empty pallet. Give the integrator responsibility for returning affected changes to packaging.
Packaging has marked the bearing regions and found the rotated row unsupported by the current proposal. The integrator is comparing an aligned pattern with the actual tool opening and withdrawal. The old carton count is still labelled proposed.
Jane's question belongs in the choice. A supported lower-count arrangement can be technically worthwhile and still cost more handling than the buyer expected. Don't paste the old throughput figure underneath the new picture and leave dispatch to discover the difference.
Dispatch reviewed current orders and accepts assessing the aligned arrangement, with the extra pallet movements costed. Packaging accepts its support condition; the tool exit study is not complete, so this isn't approval to run it.
The revision now shows that open check and the agreed operating assumptions. Thanks, Mina, separating the handling cost from support made the dispatch conversation much less circular. We still have no final tool-access acceptance.