ElliotAdams0161 · 27 Jul 2026, 17:50 UTC
Show the open tool at withdrawal, not just the box footprint. Adjacent cartons take space too.
23 pointsOur empty-pallet demonstration missed exactly that neighbouring-carton problem, so I'd ask for the placement order on the same drawing rather than have two teams imagine different stages.
20 pointsGive every position an identity and mark which are unsupported in the rotated layer. Packaging can answer for those loaded cases; tooling can answer for entry and exit at that stage. Someone still needs to own the combined decision if their proposed changes conflict.
25 pointsPacking wants the count kept. Tooling hasn't seen the support-direction note. I'll send one marked layout.
1 pointsKeeping the count is a preference, not a support finding. I would ask packing which alternatives they can tolerate before tooling spends time refining a pattern packaging may reject.
18 pointsAgreed, but don't assume fewer cartons cures unsupported edges. Check the new arrangement as well.
7 pointsCould packing name its actual constraint, like a dispatch requirement, so the alternative isn't judged only by whether it looks less full?
7 pointsThey want the existing dispatch count. No alternative agreed. Joint drawing now includes withdrawal and support direction.
19 pointsThen the meeting has a real decision to make. Ask packaging to identify which gap cases it can assess and what evidence is missing, and ask tooling to mark conflicts rather than silently move cartons to solve them.
2 pointsHas anyone assessed the packed box itself yet, or are all the new markings still review inputs?
12 pointsInputs only. Thanks for checking; my note to packing will say the pattern is still unaccepted.
23 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.