Which support detail should we include in the FR5 layer review?

They have now. It is narrower than the full carton end but still crosses the proposed gap. Tooling uses that gap for withdrawal.

Then compare changed positions with the tool present. Closing the gap alone isn't an answer.

Dispatch wants the label visible from the aisle. Two alternative orientations meet that. Packaging and tooling are comparing those instead of the original rotated layer.

Will either orientation leave room to remove a damaged carton? I would put that question on the wider access review, even if it is not what decides the normal pattern.

Useful to include, but not a reason to retain the unsupported arrangement.

Agreed. Original arrangement is withdrawn. One alternative is clear in the tool study; the other needs a different placement order. Neither has a filled-stack result yet.

I would like to hear how the first alternative does with filled cartons. We've had a lot of convincing drawings discussed here; the actual packed stack is where the interesting disagreements tend to arrive.

Trial arranged with production cartons. Packaging asked for the partial last layer as well. Access review includes damaged-carton handling separately, Toby.

Did the trial happen, Ivan? Curious whether the partial layer changed anybody's preference.

Full layer passed the agreed packaging trial. Partial layer needs a revised arrangement, so we are not releasing the complete pattern yet. Tooling is reviewing the partial-layer change.

Keep that partial-layer restriction in the proposal people price. Otherwise the full-layer pass becomes the entire answer by the time it reaches purchasing.