Our top view has placement arrows only. No open tool or withdrawal path.

Then request one actual placement in context. Pick a rotated box where a support lies over a gap. Show what is already on the pallet and where the tool must go after release. That gives both reviewers the same concrete problem.

I would not conclude the box is unsupported solely because the outline crosses a gap. More precisely, compare its required bearing regions with that gap and packaging's permitted conditions before deciding whether the layout fails.

The marked end region crosses it. Packaging has not stated that bridging is permitted.

Our review once used empty cartons to illustrate a pattern. Useful picture, but it did not establish support under load. Are your support marks for the packed product?

Yes, Owen. The packing specification identifies the reinforced ends of the filled box.

That is a useful starting point. Does the tool designer have that same packing specification, Hazel?

Aaron, I'd send the marked drawing as well. The end-support detail can disappear when the next person extracts only outside dimensions from the specification.

And identify the revision on their response. A new layout can solve the tool's exit and move the unsupported box somewhere else, so two answers against different drawings are not a joint assessment.

Tooling had dimensions only. I've sent the marked support view and requested a common revision.

Who settles the conflict if packaging wants support exactly where tooling wants an exit? I would ask who owns that decision before separate approvals start arriving.

The integrator can coordinate alternatives, with packaging retaining the support decision. No need for Hazel to invent a compromise clearance between two suppliers' drawings.

Our integrator owns that review. They've acknowledged both constraints, with no revised layout yet.

Is reducing the layer count allowed, or does dispatch require the current count? That could affect which alternatives they should spend time on.

Dispatch has not answered that. I left count flexibility open in the request.

Then keep a lower-count layout conditional, not the agreed solution. You've identified what the review needs, but neither the support result nor the tool route has been supplied yet.