@ElliotBaker0509 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.

Give packaging and the integrator a drawing combining those details. A repeated unrotated layer is worth assessing alongside the alternating one because it may better suit the specified support direction.

Don't let simpler sound like approved. An unrotated layer still needs its load and stability assessed with the actual contents.

@SamAdams0159 Agreed; I meant a comparison option. Packaging must assess both arrangements with the specified cartons and contents, including support and stability.

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

@YasminBaker0441 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.

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.

I had a separate dispatch setup where the carton top view omitted the pallet's deck gaps. Including the deck geometry exposed additional positions for packaging assessment.

@TheoCarter1019 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.

@ChenChen1138 Add the complete tool geometry and adjacent cartons at the corner positions. A tool-centre point alone can't establish whether the body or fingers overlap nearby packaging.

@ElliotBaker0509 The tool outline overlaps the next carton at one corner in our offline layout. Lovely rectangles, inconvenient gripper. I'll flag that position for the integrator.

Include approach and release, not just the final pose. Clearing the outline at the destination wouldn't establish access to it.

I'll request an offline assessment across all layers, including approach and release at that corner, rather than investigating an unreviewed pattern by manual jogging.

@ChenChen1138 What about the last layer if it isn't full? Does that need a drawing too?

Any partial layers permitted by the process belong in the review. The packaging assessment needs to cover the resulting loads that dispatch may actually receive.

Could I ask packaging which partial arrangements they'd permit, instead of assuming every possible missing box is acceptable?

@ChenChen1138 Yes. Get the allowed arrangements defined, then have your integration plan work within them. Unassessed partial loads shouldn't inherit the full-pattern decision.

For my separate setup, defined partial arrangements gave dispatch clear examples to identify. The original full-pallet drawing hadn't established what incomplete loads were permitted.