My current layer drawing shows carton footprints and a tool centre point only. It hasn't incorporated the support direction specified in the carton documentation

Give packaging and the integrator a drawing combining those details. A repeated unrotated layer is worth assessing alongside the alternating one because it may better suit the specified support direction.

Don't let simpler sound like approved. An unrotated layer still needs its load and stability assessed with the actual contents.

Agreed; I meant a comparison option. Packaging must assess both arrangements with the specified cartons and contents, including support and stability.

I thought alternating layers always made a stronger stack. Is that too simple?

Too general. The arrangement changes where loads pass through the cartons. Your packaging reviewer needs the actual construction and support geometry to judge it.

The layer overlay shows carton edges above gaps below. That gives me something specific to mark for packaging instead of saying the pattern feels wrong

I had a separate dispatch setup where the carton top view omitted the pallet's deck gaps. Including the deck geometry exposed additional positions for packaging assessment.

Did you tie the pattern to a pallet specification? Ours just says pallet size, which now seems a bit thin

Specify the deck arrangement as well as the footprint. Two pallets with the same outside size needn't provide the same support underneath.

@AmyBrooks0815 For access, show the whole tool beside neighbouring cartons at the corner placements. The centre mark won't reveal body or finger overlap.

The tool outline overlaps the next carton at one corner in our offline layout. Lovely rectangles, inconvenient gripper. I'll flag that position for the integrator

Include approach and release, not just the final pose. Clearing the outline at the destination wouldn't establish access to it.

I'll request an offline assessment across all layers, including approach and release at that corner, rather than investigating an unreviewed pattern by manual jogging

Should an incomplete final layer be included in the pattern drawings, or is the full-layer review sufficient?

@MeiBell0690 If your process can produce one, include it. Packaging needs to assess the loads dispatch will actually handle, including permitted partial arrangements.

Could I ask packaging which partial arrangements they'd permit, instead of assuming every possible missing box is acceptable?

@AmyBrooks0815 Yes. Get the allowed arrangements defined, then have your integration plan work within them. Unassessed partial loads shouldn't inherit the full-pattern decision.

For my separate setup, defined partial arrangements gave dispatch clear examples to identify. The original full-pallet drawing hadn't established what incomplete loads were permitted.