Keep those requirements on one candidate revision. I mean the support section and the movement sequence must describe the same arrangement, not two individually sensible proposals joined by the same carton count.

Only the final layer is shown. Packaging has the filled-box details; complete hand and intermediate placements are requested.

Has packaging identified a conflict, or merely received the information?

Conflict identified: one required bearing strip crosses an unsupported gap. Original pattern is held, not accepted.

Would the proposed remedy change the packing support or the carton positions? Those may require different owners and costs. Don't let a drawing label such as intermediate sheet imply an available, assessed operation.

Designer proposed a support sheet between layers. No sheet specification or handling method yet, so it's an option, not a remedy.

Who places the sheet, and where are replacements stored? If the answer is the operator, that becomes repeated work and access to assess, not a line you can hide under packaging consumables.

Does packaging say what the sheet must achieve across the gap? Choosing a material before defining that requirement could give you a cheap item that doesn't solve the support problem.

And the tool still needs its full release check with the sheet and neighbouring boxes present.

Packaging has specified the required support function, not selected a sheet. Operations won't accept an unassessed manual insertion step.

Then compare that complete sheet-handling option with a changed layer arrangement, including their different work and space demands. You do not yet have grounds to call either cheaper; omitting a task from one estimate would manufacture that result.

Project owner asked for both scoped alternatives. The original maximum carton count is now marked unapproved in purchasing's estimate too.

Good, but is a short-order outcome included in both alternatives? It can disappear when the discussion turns into full-layer count versus sheet price, although dispatch still has the same unfinished pallet to handle.

Who will keep the candidate identifiers common when those alternatives return from different suppliers?

Integrator owns the common revisions. Both scopes include the permitted short-order condition; neither alternative has completed support and tool review.

Then retain the hold on the original and the two open alternatives separately. No selected layer yet.