The alternating layers fill our pallet drawing neatly. Looking closer, some turned product boxes put their preferred support faces above gaps. I'm reviewing this FR5 packing proposal and would like packaging and tooling to resolve the same version, not send two unrelated approvals. Where should the comparison start?
Start with filled boxes and their bearing requirements. A rectangle on a pallet doesn't tell packaging which bit of the contents is loading the carton wall.
Mina, fewer boxes can also leave larger gaps. I would compare bearing areas for both candidates before treating the lower count as the easy option. It may help the tool without helping the box.
I've asked for that comparison. Packaging has the box construction now, and I have numbered the turned positions on the current layout. The alternative isn't a recommendation yet.
Would numbered placement stages help here? Tool release clearance can change when the neighbouring box is already present. Keep those stages with the support overlay.
Dispatch does move partial pallets. Packaging has now ruled out two turned positions for this filled-box construction. The lower-count drawing still has one of them, so it isn't our answer either.
Warehouse supervisor owns that decision. We've added the partial-pallet condition to their review, and the layout designer has packaging's marked exclusions. Tool supplier is waiting for the revised sequence.
The two old drawings are withdrawn from the sign-off pack. Revised candidate due next week. This review has definitely changed the proposal, but we don't have a usable pattern to approve yet.