Current rotated positions put those preferred areas over gaps. Tooling has shown carrying, not release among neighbours.

Are the bearing areas actually marked by packaging, or are you inferring them from the label direction? I can't judge how serious the gap is without knowing what packed-box support requirement it conflicts with.

A section through the questionable row would be a cheap start, with the lower layer shown. Otherwise the same top view can make support and tool access look plausible for opposite reasons.

We once lost important assumptions between a working sketch and its cleaned-up review copy. I'd put the support findings and unfinished tool stages on the drawing itself, so the next person forwarding it cannot accidentally forward only the tidy boxes.

David, packaging has described the bearing direction but hasn't marked exact regions. We need that before judging these gaps.

That is the first missing input, then. Ask packaging to identify those regions and any permitted bridging conditions for the packed carton. Tooling can meanwhile define the proposed release sequence; neither group needs to pretend its unfinished answer has already settled the other group's question.

Luis, agreed. I was questioning the certainty of the support claim, not saying the gaps are harmless. Grace's carrying view plainly leaves the exit unanswered either way.

Partial orders occur. The current proposal has no permitted partial-layer arrangements. Dispatch needs to join that decision.

Owen's point affects the eventual instructions as well. The person closing an incomplete pallet needs the allowed arrangement, not a rule to make it look approximately like the full-layer drawing.

And the review should distinguish a proposed partial arrangement from one validated for the packed load. Adding it to the drawing gets the question into the room; it does not approve the load by itself.

Packaging will mark the regions; tooling will add release stages. Dispatch is defining required partial orders. No complete assessment returned.

Has anyone proposed changing the pattern yet, or are you still establishing whether the current one is acceptable? I wouldn't assume fewer cartons are needed before packaging answers.

Still assessing this one. No lower-count pattern or support sheet proposed for this case.

I'd like to hear what packaging concludes once the marked regions are available. Right now you have a specific support question and a missing release review, not evidence that a particular alternative solves both.