Customer wants it readable from the outside. They have not specified that face. Packing currently uses the short end because that is presented at their bench.

Could packing show what changing the labelled face would involve before you redesign the whole stack? It may add handling, but at least you can compare actual work.

Moving the label sounds attractive. Does the straight pattern also let the proposed gripper release and withdraw? Otherwise you solve the reading problem and inherit a tool-access problem.

Yes, Jonas. I'd sketch both the packing change and the complete straight placement. My example saved work because both fitted, not because moving a label is always easier.

Packaging accepts the support shown for the straight full layer using our filled-carton section. Tooling hasn't shown withdrawal beside the next carton yet. Packing says the alternative label face is reachable at the same bench.

Reachable is a start. We had a job where the label could go anywhere in theory, but the packer had to turn every filled case to see it properly. That extra turn vanished from the first cost sheet. Have someone walk through the proposed labelling step, including checking it can be read.

Thanks, Jonas. That is the extra handling I meant. Niamh, could the present packing operator compare it with their current step?

They did. The other face can be labelled without turning the carton in this bench arrangement. Checking the label takes the same step. We've added that arrangement to the proposal rather than assuming any bench would work.

Has tooling returned the withdrawal view?

Yes. It shows a conflict beside the adjacent carton. Tooling proposes a different finger arrangement, with its own quote. Moving the label has not made the whole job ready.

Now you can compare that actual quote with the turned alternative, if packaging has any acceptable turned layout. Don't compare a revised complete tool with the old bare-arm price.

Packaging has rejected the turned alternative we were sent. We are pursuing the straight pattern with the proposed finger change; short orders and the revised placement sequence still need checking.

Does the revised quote identify the same finger arrangement as the new drawing? I nearly mixed an old price with a new layout in another review.