Actual packed box and its construction reference. Packaging marked the bearing strips on the sample. The disputed strip crosses the gap in both the intermediate placement and completed layer

Then a different placement order alone will not repair it. Ask for a supported alternative using that same box, with the real finger opening and exit. Dispatch will also need the actual order endings, not only the neat full pallet.

Does the requirement to alternate come from dispatch or from the first sketch?

And is there any required label face at the receiving point? That is worth establishing while alternatives are still drawings rather than after a supported pattern has been priced

Henry, no dispatch requirement to alternate. Aisha, one identified face must be available for scanning at dispatch, not every label facing out. That requirement is already on the case handling sheet

Has packaging rejected this turned position formally?

Yes. Integrator is comparing unturned rows with the scan face preserved and all support areas identified. Old pattern marked rejected. New opening and withdrawal still need tooling's answer

Include what happens when an order ends before the illustrated layer does. Our dispatch people need to distinguish a complete small order from an interrupted pallet waiting to resume, even when both look half empty.

Both endings are in the comparison. The unturned option now has the joint support and tool-exit check, but dispatch has not returned the exchange workload for the lower carton count per pallet. Pricing remains provisional

Does that comparison include the larger orders where one extra exchange coincides with another dispatch task? That overlap can matter more than an average exchange time