I want to check the cheap part first: whether our proposed layer even supports the filled cases where it should. The UR5e drawing alternates corrugated cases of components, but some rotated cases bridge gaps despite a preferred support direction. Can packaging and tooling review one arrangement together before I accept it?
A printed carton arrow once hid an internal packing change in our review. Start with the filled case specification, then mark the required support on the actual lower layer.
Yes, and include the order of placement. A gripper that can leave the first case may be boxed in by the time it places the last one. I don't know which tool you're considering, but a finished-stack drawing won't show that problem.
Another item, and not automatically adequate support. Ask packaging to evaluate a proposed sheet with the loaded cases and gaps; don't make it the answer before they have said what it must carry.
Packaging has marked two bearing strips on the filled-case drawing. On the rotated row one strip crosses the gaps. Tooling is using that marked layout now, and I have listed the sheet as a proposal only.
Who replenishes the sheets if that option survives? I ask because I have seen a tidy robot proposal hand someone a new reach-and-lift job every few minutes, with no place to store the sheets except the access aisle.
We have two options for review now: a changed case arrangement, and the original arrangement with a specified sheet for packaging to assess. Dispatch dislikes the lower count in the changed arrangement. No one has agreed to the sheet handling job.
What is dispatch comparing: cases per pallet or the whole order's pallet count? A lower layer count may matter differently once the real order sizes and partial pallets are included.
Dispatch compared current orders and still wants the denser pattern. Packaging won't accept the sheet proposal from its description alone, and tooling has an unresolved withdrawal clearance near the final case. So we have two actual objections, not just a general review pending.
Then can the person buying the cell choose whether to fund the missing assessment and tooling work, or abandon this dense pattern? Neither department should have to pretend its objection disappeared to make the purchase proceed.
I have put those choices to the buyer. The current pattern remains unaccepted, and no sheet or tooling change is ordered. I can't report a compromise because we do not have one yet.