My current layer drawing shows carton footprints and a tool centre point only. It hasn't incorporated the support direction specified in the carton documentation.

Give packaging and the integrator a drawing combining those details. A repeated unrotated layer is worth assessing alongside the alternating one because it may better suit the specified support direction.

The repeated arrangement remains a candidate, not an accepted solution. Its support and load stability still need assessment for the cartons with their actual contents.

Agreed; I meant a comparison option. Packaging must assess both arrangements with the specified cartons and contents, including support and stability.

I thought alternating layers always made a stronger stack. Is that too simple?

Too general. The arrangement changes where loads pass through the cartons. Your packaging reviewer needs the actual construction and support geometry to judge it.

@SofiaBell0630 The layer overlay shows carton edges above gaps below. That gives me something specific to mark for packaging instead of saying the pattern feels wrong.

On my dispatch setup, the top view hid the pallet deck gaps completely. Adding the deck drawing changed which positions needed packaging review

Was your accepted pattern linked to a particular pallet specification? My drawing currently names only the overall pallet size.

Specify the deck arrangement as well as the footprint. Two pallets with the same outside size needn't provide the same support underneath

@MayaBrown0910 Add the complete tool geometry and adjacent cartons at the corner positions. A tool-centre point alone can't establish whether the body or fingers overlap nearby packaging.

@SofiaBell0630 With the complete outline added, my offline layout shows a tool overlap with a neighbouring carton at one corner. I'll identify that specific position for the integrator's assessment.

Ask the review to include approach and release geometry. Even a clear final position wouldn't show that the tool can reach and leave it as required.

I'll request an offline assessment across all layers, including approach and release at that corner, rather than investigating an unreviewed pattern by manual jogging.

@MayaBrown0910 What about the last layer if it isn't full? Does that need a drawing too?

Any partial layers permitted by the process belong in the review. The packaging assessment needs to cover the resulting loads that dispatch may actually receive.

Would it make sense to have packaging define permitted partial arrangements rather than treating every incomplete layer as covered?

Yes. Get the allowed arrangements defined, then have your integration plan work within them. Unassessed partial loads shouldn't inherit the full-pattern decision.

On my setup, that gave dispatch something specific to recognise. A picture of one perfect full pallet hadn't answered their partial-load question