Priya's point also affects the cost comparison. A different layer may need more pallet movements, while a support insert may add preparation; neither is automatically the cheaper correction because the robot's placement count looks similar.

Dispatch moves partial pallets at order end. Packaging is marking the loaded regions, and tooling is adding the opening and exit views.

Have those views identified a real conflict yet, or are they still being prepared?

Prepared now. Two rotated cartons lack required bearing. Tooling's proposed exit also uses the space suggested for an added support.

Ask both owners to compare the support proposal with the actual exit, including intermediate positions. The conflict may justify changing the tool or the pattern, but adding a support on a final-stack picture has not established either option.

They rejected that support because it blocks opening. A different layer order is being compared with a revised tool, not accepted yet.

Keep packaging in the layer-order comparison. Changing which box arrives last may help access, but the final bearing requirement remains, and the partly built states may change the conditions dispatch eventually needs to handle.

The order change did not resolve final bearing. We are retaining the current manual pallet method while the revised-tool option is costed and assessed.

Make that the shift message too: current method retained, proposed robot pattern not released.