They have now marked the filled case's required end supports. The current rotated row leaves one end over a gap. Tooling has that finding with the actual lower-layer drawing.

Has anyone proposed an alternative yet? I would not assume a sheet or a lower count is the answer until packaging and tooling have assessed the complete arrangement.

Keep each candidate on one revision with its support and release findings. I'm still joining those questions on our case layout; a shifted row can improve bearing and use the very gap the tool needs.

Include the allowed partial layers and actual pallet deck in that review. The full pattern's support result should not silently approve every short order or pallet with the same outside dimensions.

Does the revised tool view include open-finger withdrawal among cases already placed?

Yes. The revised model clears that withdrawal, and packaging accepts the defined bearing arrangement. Dispatch is comparing the extra pallet changes before we choose the lower-count method; physical checks are still due.

That is a real candidate to compare. Has dispatch included the work at the end of short orders, not only the number of full pallets it would add?

They have included short-order finishing and staging. The cost comparison remains acceptable to our project lead, who has authorised the defined physical assessment, not the final installation. Lower count is no longer being dismissed just for looking less full.

Keep that assessment scope with the candidate. The support and model findings have earned a physical check, while the actual handling result still needs to be observed before the pattern is released.