Only a direction arrow on the carton detail, with no bearing regions over the lower layer; the internal pack is identified now and packaging is joining the review with tooling rather than answering a separate empty-carton drawing

Can dispatch accept a lower count if that turns out necessary, or is the present quantity a hard requirement? I'd establish the freedom before anybody spends days preserving a number that was only the first sketch's result.

Our packing lead had to bring a filled case into a similar discussion because the outline encouraged everyone to imagine the load spread evenly; having your internal pack identified should help keep the support decision about the carton you actually dispatch

Jasper, count can change if the whole working method remains acceptable; packaging has now rejected the rotated row for missing end support and proposed a lower-count straight arrangement for the combined review

Then keep the support finding separate from accepting that alternative. Its complete tool release, partial loads and dispatch handling still need assessment; lower count is not itself a support or access result.

And include extra pallet movements in the comparison, Hassan Brooks; a smaller layer can be a reasonable choice, but the person changing pallets should not discover the additional work after purchasing has called it the simpler option.

The candidate now has acceptable bearing and a clear complete tool route in the shared model, with permitted partial loads stated; dispatch is checking the changed pallet work and physical handling remains due, so it is a candidate with findings rather than a signed-off pattern