Packaging has given direction only, no bearing regions yet. Tooling has a closed-grip view. Both leave part of the decision unanswered.

Then request the support marks and the open-finger withdrawal, not two general approvals.

Keep the current gaps identified while those inputs are collected; an unanswered support question is not proof of failure, but it is sufficient reason to withhold approval.

Who owns the combined drawing when those replies arrive?

Our layout engineer. I've asked them to keep packaging and tooling on the same revision rather than collecting independent approval emails.

Include the last placements into each layer. Neighbouring cases may occupy space that looked free during the first pickup-and-place illustration.

And partial pallets, if dispatch handles them. Don't assume every order finishes a complete layer.

Partial-load handling needs dispatch's input, because a proposed sheet or changed case orientation can change what the next worker must do after palletising.

Dispatch does handle short orders. They are joining the review. Packaging has now marked support regions, but the full withdrawal is still missing.

Do the support marks themselves show a conflict with the present arrangement?

Two rotated case bearing regions span the current gaps. Packaging is assessing alternatives. I'm not treating a suggested sheet as an accepted correction.

Return each alternative to tooling with those support marks intact. Moving a case off a gap can consume the space the fingers were expected to use.

And retain the original finding beside the new proposals: the current bearing conflict is established, while replacement support and access remain to be assessed together.