Who should approve the carton rotation rule in my pallet code?

The pattern came from a demonstration using empty cases, while the packing sheet belongs to the product we will ship.

Then the demonstration hasn't answered the support question. Ask for a review using the packed case and your pallet type. Your code shouldn't be the place where people quietly decide that a packing instruction probably doesn't matter.

We had a demo pattern carried into production planning by accident. The file looked finished because it had our part number on it. Does yours carry an approval or just the product name?

Also, why are alternate layers rotated in this proposal? There may be a reason, but 'that's what palletisers do' isn't much of one. Somebody needs to own the stack behaviour and the case support together.

I'd ask your packing person to mark the load-bearing areas on one flattened case, it made our drawing conversation much easier.

That helps explain the carton. Still need its support on the actual layer below, not only on the pallet. A supported first layer doesn't prove the rotated ones higher up are happy.

It has our product name and no approval field; the rotation was described as improving interlock, without any product-specific assessment.

Interlock isn't a free pass for poor support. Can packaging review both in one trial?

I have requested that review, with the proposed layer drawings and the packing sheet attached.

Include tool withdrawal too. The cartons can be happy while the gripper is trapped.

What kind of tool? Don't need a model number. A side grip and a top pick have different access questions, especially as neighbouring cases accumulate. The review should include whichever tool is actually proposed.

A side clamp, with release space shown for an isolated carton but not for the completed layer.

That isolated view can be misleading. In ours the last carton fit, but the open fingers had nowhere to go. We caught it with cardboard outlines before the tooling was made.

The integrator has now added the neighbouring cases, and one placement requires more release space than the present pattern leaves.

Has the packing person seen that revised view yet, or are they still judging the original arrangement?

Good question. Don't run two reviews of two different patterns and staple the answers together. Give the revision a clear identity so everyone can point at the same case positions when they approve or object.

Both reviewers now have the revised layout; I have disabled that proposed pattern in the application pending their decision.

Check what happens to a saved job that already selected it. Disabling it in the menu can leave an old recipe pointing at the same pattern. That detail belongs to your software review, not the packaging person.

It refuses to start that saved job and names the unavailable pattern; I tested that route after reading your reply.