Our FR5 pattern has the right labelled cartons on top and a lower layer copied from another job, so packaging's support arrows land on cartons that won't actually be there; I've asked for the current packed construction and real lower layer together before we discuss tooling changes.
Have the tool designer use that same corrected section, with withdrawal shown through the actual gaps, so packaging's correction does not arrive after a separate tool-access approval has already been issued.
Both are using revision C now, with the copied lower layer removed; the turned carton's bearing end lands over a real gap, and the original pattern has no joint approval.
Who is returning the combined answer, Jo, rather than leaving you to decide which of two specialist comments wins? Someone needs to own the actual usable pattern and the packer's work around it.
Compare a complete alternative, not just a moved support line. What has actually been proposed so far? A different carton position can affect withdrawal, the last incomplete layer and how much work lands back with dispatch
Integrator owns the return, Harish; Mina, the only alternative proposed so far is a lower count with the cartons unturned, and dispatch is comparing that on actual orders rather than an ideal full pallet.
Owen, packaging and tooling have checked the lower-count build and its permitted incomplete endings; Harish, the packer walked through those with dispatch, but the extra pallet holding space hasn't been agreed with the warehouse lead.
Keep that space unresolved in the choice, even with the pattern checks complete; storing the extra pallet somewhere convenient for the drawing is not the same as agreeing where it can actually wait.
Warehouse lead offered a marked holding position for the comparison, and dispatch is checking whether its extra movement fits their workload; we've not accepted the pattern as our operating arrangement yet.