That gets you half an answer, Theo. The fingers still need somewhere to go. I'd put their opening and withdrawal on those views before anyone starts moving cartons around to fix the support.

David, that is the joint review Elliot asked for. It may need sections as well as top views, especially if cartons already placed obstruct the tool. Who is coordinating the drawing revision?

I'm collecting the two sets of comments. Jane, no support arrows on the current pattern. I'll get those added alongside the tool views. We haven't established what bridging the carton can tolerate.

David is correct that my proposed view was incomplete for tooling. Add the sequence too. A tool position clear on the empty pallet can be obstructed later in the layer.

Also worth asking which cartons are used for the packaging assessment, because empty display cartons won't tell you much about the loaded stack, and dispatch will be the people dealing with any damage.

The packaging reviewer wants representative filled cartons. Combined views have exposed a second snag: moving one row onto support leaves less room to withdraw the fingers. So the first suggested correction isn't ready either.

That's the useful drawing. Is fewer cartons on the awkward layer allowed, or has someone fixed the quantity before checking the pack?

Fewer may help access, but it changes support for the next layer. Keep it as a complete stack option, not a local patch to one crowded row.

Quantity can change. I've asked for a reduced-count option through the complete stack, Mei. Packaging hasn't returned its assessment yet, so I'm comparing proposals rather than choosing one.

Who has to move the leftover cartons if the count changes? Small dispatch areas can absorb a surprisingly awkward extra handling job.

Dispatch will join the next review for exactly that reason. We've got a shared drawing now and two options worth discussing. Still no accepted pattern; I don't have the packaging answer needed to choose.