Why does our FR10 layer approval use the wrong packed carton?

Yes. Current packing uses two end supports; the earlier construction distributed support differently. The outer carton and product label did not change, which is how the old approval entered this review.

Then the current carton needs its own support review with tooling. I wouldn't assume the old pattern fails everywhere, but the old approval cannot answer the turned positions you describe.

Can the packer distinguish those constructions when old stock is returned?

The packing reference is on the inner label, not the dispatch face. Returns are checked by packing before use; we have not proposed mixing unchecked cartons into this job.

We added a packaging identification step to a workstation once and nearly hid it inside the word prepared. If that returns check is already part of your normal job, retain it in the comparison. Don't make the robot proposal appear to do it.

Jack, yes, though Aaron has named an existing check. I'd concentrate the new work on the support and tool exit until someone actually proposes changing how returns are handled.

Packaging and tooling have the current filled sample and the same layer section now. The first review is still outstanding. I have removed the old approval from the candidate's accepted-evidence column.

And thanks, Hazel, for the returns question. It belongs in the handover description even though we are not adding that task for this proposal.

Fair enough, Emma. I wasn't asking for another process change. I would want the existing packer's work visible when Aaron compares the whole job, rather than rediscovering it after a transfer-time estimate wins the argument.