Get packaging to explain what carries the contents. The same outside box can be loaded differently inside, and a neat pattern tells you nothing about that contact.

And give tooling that explanation before they choose an exit channel. A support added later can occupy exactly the space their fingers need, even when the carton count stays unchanged.

Warehouse moves them at batch end; packaging says the preferred direction comes from the packed contents, but nobody has marked the bearing regions on this layout yet

Then no one has established the rotated positions are acceptable. That is different from establishing they will fail. Keep the support requirement specific enough to assess.

I would put the loaded carton section beside the layer plan. Not a decorative section: the load path should identify which walls or internal supports need bearing and where the lower cartons actually provide it.

Warehouse also needs to say which partial conditions it expects to move. One box left on a layer and a nearly complete layer need not present the same support or restraint question, and the person moving it should not be asked to invent the permitted cases after commissioning.

Who will keep the permitted carton and pattern revisions paired after a packaging change?

The overlay is back: two loaded edges are over gaps, and the proposed extra bearer blocks finger withdrawal; packaging and tooling both saw the same drawing this time

We once issued a support change without its tooling change; stores could supply both bits, just not a working pair.

That rules out this bearer arrangement, not every alternating pattern; is anyone comparing a different placement order before changing the tool?

Order can change which neighbour blocks withdrawal. It cannot give the final loaded edge support where the completed stack still has a gap, so packaging has to stay in that comparison.

Have they found an order that changes the conflict, or is that still a suggestion?

Tony's suggestion is worth sketching, but I'd compare it with a non-alternating arrangement too. The cost is not only cartons per layer; awkward interrupted-pallet handling can consume the apparent gain.

The order change still traps the fingers at the last position; I've dropped the alternating proposal and asked for costing on aligned layers with the lower capacity shown explicitly

Who pays for the extra pallet movements? That used to disappear into our warehouse overtime

Mina, does the aligned alternative have a support assessment yet? Dropping one unsuitable pattern is a decision, but it does not establish that its replacement is ready.

No assessment yet; the quote request says candidate, and warehouse is costing the movements Jamie asked about

Include that movement allowance in the comparison you take back to purchasing. It can still be the better choice, but only if the warehouse workload stays visible alongside the equipment price and the outstanding support review.