I'm holding the pattern approval. The component cases fit the alternating drawing, but some rotated cases bridge gaps along the preferred support direction. Need packaging's actual bearing requirement beside the tool's release space before we buy around this layout.
A bench layout exposed an access assumption in a pack review I attended. Start by marking the filled case's required support regions on the actual lower layer and pallet, before paying for a motion trial.
Elena, packaging has confirmed two end regions need bearing for this insert and contents. Our rotated positions leave one unsupported. Mina, we've marked those regions on the current layer and pallet views.
Amara, packaging proposes shifting the lower row so the upper case ends bear on supported regions, retaining the carton count. Aisha, the integrator owns the combined model. Tool release has not been checked on that shifted arrangement.
That is worth the static combined check. Include the tool's open state and the neighbours at the point it withdraws; retaining the count does not establish that the old placement order remains usable.
The combined model shows the shifted row preserving support but occupying the tool's withdrawal gap. We haven't selected thinner fingers or a new pattern. The integrator has taken that specific conflict back to both reviewers, with partial layers included.
That's a useful result from joining the views, even without a selected answer. Have they said which alternative they will assess next? I'd keep that separate from the finding against this shifted-row candidate.
They're comparing a different placement order with a lower-count arrangement. Neither has returned with both support and access findings yet. The original count remains a preference in planning, not an instruction to accept the conflict.