Both views need the same underlying layer. Otherwise one person checks a support that the other person's opening fingers pass through, and the disagreement arrives after the layout has acquired a price.

The current drawing has the cases but no opening-finger sequence. Packaging supplied a direction arrow, not the actual bearing regions. I have asked both owners for those missing details.

Does that direction arrow apply to the packed contents as proposed? I would retain the packing revision beside it rather than treat the same external case size as the same load.

And who finishes a part layer when an order ends? Our extra pallet work was invisible until dispatch described it.

Mina, do you mean a different robot pattern or manual finishing after removal? Those need different information in the review.

We currently remove partial pallets at order end. The proposal does not say whether that changes, and the packing revision behind the arrow is not identified.

Then ask dispatch to describe the partial states it actually moves. That can be done while packaging traces the arrow; no need to wait for a finished tool model to discover the operating requirement.

Pavel, I meant the existing removal and finishing work, not permission to reach into the cell. Anna's dispatch answer is the right starting point.

Have you found who issued the arrow? The underlying requirement may be perfectly sound while its connection to this packing revision is missing.

Packaging says it came from an earlier insert arrangement. They are checking the current packed case instead of carrying that requirement across without explanation.

That does not make the rotated positions acceptable yet. It means the support question has to be answered for the actual case.

Keep the supplier drawing as a proposal while those answers are collected. A corrected reference can change the review, but it is not itself a load assessment or a release-clearance result.

I've changed the review note to identify the unverified packing basis. Dispatch is listing the partial-pallet conditions; tooling still owes the occupied opening and withdrawal views.

Can packaging keep its eventual bearing explanation with the actual packing revision, so this arrow does not become untraceable again?

Yes, they have agreed that record. Thanks, Luis; the old arrow looked authoritative enough that I had stopped asking where it came from.