Our UR5e support section now leaves two quite different packing options

The lower-count option creates more pallets for our usual order size. The sheet option adds sheet supply and replenishment. Neither proposal includes a complete partial-order route.

More pallets can mean more than another forklift trip. On our shift it also meant more wrapping and labels, then more floor space waiting for collection. Put the real order through both options before calling that one the simple version.

Leah, yes, although some of that work may already happen per order rather than per pallet. Gabriel needs his dispatch method, not all of our overheads added together.

Our wrapping and labels are per pallet, Callum. Collection booking is per order. We have that split in the present dispatch timings, so it can stay visible in the comparison.

We used a marked floor plan to compare a proposed refill trolley before asking for detailed layout work; the sheet option could be checked against your actual dispatch routes in the same way, without assuming a trolley already fits.

Chloe, useful. Gabriel, is a sheet feeder included, or is somebody expected to place the sheets by hand? Those are quite different proposals.

A feeder is proposed. It still needs a person to replenish it. The quotation says customer supplied sheet stock and does not describe where that stock waits.

That's the space I'd mark first. We once had a refill plan that worked beautifully after moving the pallet everyone actually used for returns.

Leah, was moving the returns pallet rejected, or was the extra movement simply never costed? Sometimes moving it is sensible, provided somebody admits it is part of the change.

Never costed in the first version. It was workable later, with a different returns position and a longer walk. I should have said that, not made it sound impossible.

That is why I like the early floor-plan comparison; Gabriel can expose a dependency cheaply before anyone commits to a feeder location.

Our dispatch plan includes the current returns position. I can ask for both candidate routes against it. No proposal to move returns has been made here.

What are the support assumptions for the sheet itself? Its material and construction need to be defined for packaging's review, not just a thin rectangle in the layer drawing.

Only a nominal sheet outline is shown. Packaging has not approved a material or construction. The feeder offer assumes the sheet will be specified by us.

Then that option has a real development dependency. I would price the work needed to answer it, not pretend the feeder's price buys a complete support solution.

And ask what an incomplete order does with the next sheet. The feeder should not be the only thing that knows which layer it thinks comes next.

That is absent too, Leah. The sequence drawing only covers repeating full layers. I am adding partial orders to the same review request, not making a separate operator workaround.

Keep the lower-count option in that review. It may cost more in dispatch but still avoid work and uncertainty elsewhere. The comparison should be allowed to choose it.

It remains a live option. Thank you Leah for separating the returns example from our layout; I nearly copied the relocation into our list as though somebody here had proposed it.