The turned cartons bear on our finger gaps

Packaging marked the two long bearing edges. On the turned layer, parts of both bridge the channels left for the fingers. The section shows those gaps; the plan hides them.

Then that is the joint question. Closing the gaps may help packaging and trap the tool, so keep its release and exit on the same section

Could be required, Rebecca. I would ask packaging before throwing out the arrangement.

Chloe, that's why I asked. I don't know their packing requirement.

Alternation came from the supplier's pattern library, not our packaging instruction. Packaging wants to compare a straight layer before adding a sheet. First-layer support is already drawn on the actual pallet, Priya.

Does the straight layer leave somewhere for the fingers to withdraw after placing the last box, or is only the finished stack drawn?

Only the finished stack so far. I have not seen its placement sequence.

Ask for that before making the straight layer the answer. The last placement is often less generous than the first

And does the straight version reduce the count?

Yes, one box fewer per layer in the sketch we have. Same packed box and pallet.

One fewer may be cheap compared with sheet handling. Depends how many extra pallets it creates, obviously.

I would prefer that tradeoff to another consumable, but dispatch wants the whole-order comparison. We also sometimes stop with an incomplete layer, which the supplier has not drawn.

Keep those incomplete layers in the support review; a satisfactory completed layer does not tell packaging what is carrying the last few boxes in a short order

Do you resume those same pallets later, Leah, or are they completed by a different route? That changes what the supplier needs to model

Same pallet can return later. Dispatch has an identified example with a short row left on it. They will join the review rather than send us a description of a typical pallet.

An actual awkward one. Good.

Joint review held. Packaging accepts the straight candidate's proposed support, but tooling found the return to that short row obstructs withdrawal. We have rejected the current continuation sequence, not approved the whole straight pattern.