We've only got top-view rectangles and a tool centre mark. The carton note specifies support direction, but the layer drawing doesn't show it.

Build that combined drawing for packaging and your integrator. Include a repeated, unrotated layer as a simpler candidate; it may suit the support direction better.

The repeated arrangement remains a candidate, not an accepted solution. Its support and load stability still need assessment for the cartons with their actual contents.

@LouisCarter1007 Agreed; I meant a comparison option. Packaging must assess both arrangements with the specified cartons and contents, including support and stability.

@MeiBarnes0603 I thought alternating layers always made a stronger stack. Is that too simple?

That rule is too broad because changing the pattern changes the load paths. The packaging reviewer needs the carton construction and support geometry to assess the result.

@MeiBarnes0603 The layer overlay shows carton edges above gaps below. That gives me something specific to mark for packaging instead of saying the pattern feels wrong.

@ChloeBell0657 On my dispatch setup, the top view hid the pallet deck gaps completely. Adding the deck drawing changed which positions needed packaging review.

Did you tie the pattern to a pallet specification? Ours just says pallet size, which now seems a bit thin.

Include the deck geometry in the pattern's pallet reference. Matching overall dimensions don't establish identical support beneath the carton arrangement.

I'm holding the pattern decision. A neat footprint doesn't establish the packaging support and tool access our cell needs.

Understood. The footprint alone hasn't answered either requirement strongly enough to close your decision.