I am asking for the packed underside before trusting another alternating-layer picture. Our FR10 proposal now has arrows labelled support, but they were drawn by the layout author from the carton outline. Packaging has not confirmed those are the bearing areas.
The carton is sealed around an internal insert, so looking at the outside does not settle where its contents need support. We have a packed sample available. I want packaging to identify the requirement on that sample and tooling to show the finger spaces against it. Otherwise the new arrows merely make the old assumption look more official.
Have packaging own those support marks, then use the same sample and layer revision in the tool review. The internal insert belongs in that explanation if it changes where support is required.
Packaging has the sample and its insert drawing. They have not approved the arrows. The supplier is asking whether we will accept the pattern subject to a later packaging check; I have declined that wording.
A provisional drawing can still be useful, though. I would keep it as a candidate with the support question plainly open. We nearly lost a useful layout discussion once because everyone heard not approved as stop all work. The problem was an order being released against it, not people using it to work out what was missing.
Zara, agreed. Leo can accept further assessment of the candidate without accepting the pattern for supply. Those are different decisions and the supplier should price the former honestly.
That is what I have offered: assessment of the candidate, with no tooling manufacture authorised. It must include partial orders too, not only the complete repeat shown on the current sheet.
Dispatch owns that route, Jane. Their current method transfers a part-finished pallet to wrapping, but the proposed layer may change what remains unsupported on it. That is in the joint review, not assumed covered by the full-layer picture.