I checked the support section behind our alternating-layer exercise and found it belongs to the previous carton construction. The current case has different bearing areas underneath. I have stopped calling the pattern checked, but I would like to keep the lesson useful while packaging and tooling review the current case.
Show the old and current constructions separately, then ask what the existing pattern does to the current bearing areas. The old section can explain the mistake without remaining the basis for approval.
Keep a non-rotated candidate in the exercise too. Our own comparison ended there, with lower count and more pallet handling. It was workable for us, not a general answer for every carton.
Are any of the previous cartons still arriving in dispatch, Mei? A training sheet with one new drawing won't help if the operator is still being given both constructions.
Chen's question is the one I'd ask stores before redrawing everything. We love declaring a packaging change finished while half a cupboard politely disagrees.
That's a teachable boundary already. Show how the operator recognises the excluded carton before it reaches the planned sequence, not only in a footnote beside the support calculation.
And don't let the same external size make them interchangeable in purchasing. We needed the construction identity on the actual purchase line, not just in the study folder.
Could they be stored separately at dispatch? Not proposing a grand reorganisation. Just wondering whether you're asking somebody to read two nearly identical codes all day.
They already have separate storage positions. The handover between stores and dispatch loses the distinction when it calls both the small case. I'm correcting that example with the trainer.
They reviewed the current section and rejected that row's support as drawn. Tooling has the straight-row candidate, but no release result yet. The exercise now presents that as a comparison, not an approved replacement.
Yes, both stock codes and a mixed incoming stack are in the desk exercise. Thank you, Chen, that exposed a practical handover problem before we got absorbed in the pattern drawing.