The proposed UR5e pattern uses the dimensions of our product box, but its support sketch shows a flat bottom. Our packed box has two reinforced strips. One turned position places a strip above a gap. I have withheld the pattern approval pending a joint review.
Give packaging and tooling the same packed sample and a section through that position. The top-view dimensions can be correct while the support assumption underneath is wrong.
They have the packed sample now. Packaging has rejected the unsupported strip in the turned row. Tooling says the gap was reserved for finger withdrawal, so closing it is not an agreed fix.
Anna, yes, but keep the incomplete orders in the comparison. A lovely full layer can still leave the operator with an awkward partial pallet and no described next step.
Dispatch has supplied the partial-order cases. The lower-count alternative keeps the support strips over cartons below, but tooling has not finished checking release and withdrawal. Added pallet movements are being costed as well.
Will dispatch see that cost comparison with the actual partial-order layouts? The extra work should be recognisable to the people doing it, not only an allowance in a spreadsheet.