The lower layer is shown, but only as solid rectangles; I'll ask packaging to mark the load-bearing areas instead of treating every bit of carton as equally helpful.

Where did the preferred support direction come from? Packaging specification or an assumption?

Our packaging specification identifies it; I checked because I did not want to start this argument from an arrow somebody added for label orientation.

Ask the tool supplier for its release envelope on that drawing too. Finger clearance may compete with the support areas packaging needs.

It can change, and nothing is ordered; the first arrangement won on carton count before anyone checked the support beneath it.

Then compare another arrangement before rescuing this one with extra hardware. You may lose some cartons per layer, but at least that cost is visible instead of hidden in a tool change.

A layer sheet could be considered too, if packaging can justify its support. I'd include supplying and placing it in the cost comparison.

Any sheet actually proposed yet?

No, only an option I suggested for review. Lucy hasn't reported a sheet design or a support assessment.

Packaging is comparing a lower-count pattern first, while the tool supplier adds the opening fingers; the sheet idea can wait until we know whether it solves anything worthwhile.

Does the lower-count proposal use the same carton orientation at every position? That would help me picture what changed.

Yes, aligned boxes with revised spacing in that candidate; packaging has not approved the full load yet, and tool access remains under review.

Keep the unapproved status on the new drawing itself. Otherwise the cleaner picture will arrive in somebody's presentation with the questions quietly left behind.