the smaller carton makes a worse second layer

Packaging has sketched a lower-count layer with the support edges aligned. Tool supplier wants a filled sample stack before commenting on withdrawal. We can arrange that.

Who is covering the sample trial? I've seen that get left vague until everybody is waiting for somebody else's purchase order.

Are these the cartons as packed for shipping, including the internal supports?

Yes, filled production samples with the internal supports. Our project budget covers the trial. Purchasing has agreed the supplier's attendance scope, but the visit is not booked yet.

I'd keep the pallet location fixed for the first comparison if possible, Toby. Otherwise Amara is pricing two changing layouts as well as two carton patterns.

Same pallet position in both sketches. The stack is narrower on two sides, so the tool approaches are different. I've asked for those to be shown, not just assumed clear.

Our simulation once checked every placed case and forgot the open tool on the way out. Ask for the open shape in the withdrawal study, especially beside an already placed carton

Supplier added the open shape. The high-count pattern has a conflict on one withdrawal. Lower-count sketch is clear there, but still needs the filled-carton review.

Does the withdrawal study include the final carton of the layer? That is where neighbours surround the tool most closely

Amara, has purchasing priced the lower-count shipping arrangement yet? I'd like that number beside the possible gripper work, not buried after the engineering decision.

They have an estimate. It costs more per shipment, but the revised gripper price is still missing. Caleb, the final position is included in the lower-count study.

Has packaging approved the lower-count support arrangement, or only drawn it?

Only drawn it. Filled trial is booked now, with packaging and the tool supplier attending. I shouldn't call either pattern ready yet.

Thanks for clarifying the fixed pallet position earlier. Could you ask them about clearing a damaged carton too? Normal withdrawal isn't the only time someone needs access around the stack.

I'd resist expanding this into every possible recovery scenario before comparing the two patterns. Important work, yes, but you still need an answer to the basic support problem.

The filled trial rejected the high-count pattern's support arrangement. Lower-count passed the packaging checks and the agreed tool trial. We're taking that forward; damaged-carton access is on the cell review, not being treated as covered by this result.

That answers my concern. I wasn't asking you to stop the comparison, just to leave that access question somewhere it would be picked up.