I cannot accept our UR5e layer drawing yet. The turned component cartons bridge lower-layer gaps, and someone has added a sheet to the picture without specifying what it is or how it gets there. I would like that support and tool-access question reviewed before we ask for tooling prices.
Ask packaging what support is actually required for the filled case, then have the tool designer show the complete placement and withdrawal with the proposed support arrangement identified.
I would leave the idea visible as an option with those blanks stated. A support sheet might be worthwhile, but the planner should not accidentally become its designer and replenishment operator.
Compare it with a pattern that does not depend on that sheet, if packaging can propose one; that gives the additional material and handling something concrete to compete against.
Packaging can propose lower-count straight rows. They will also assess whether a specified sheet option is sensible. We've labelled both as candidates, with no accepted support result for either yet.
That work is assigned to the integration lead with packing involved. I've stopped the current tooling quote; it was silently assuming a sheet already beneath every turned layer.
That should make the next comparison more useful. Include partial layers in both candidates, since the support and access can change before the neat finished stack exists.