The rotated cases sit on another box's weak area

Requested that. The existing drawing gives outer dimensions only, with no internal packing details.

Those internal details may matter a lot. In our samples the contents were supported by inserts, so the outside rectangle told us very little about where the load reached the base. Packaging had to explain that before the robot review made sense.

Fair correction. I was talking about what our case construction required, not evidence that your pattern fails. You're asking for an assessment, and the outcome could be acceptable support, a changed pattern or a changed pack.

Bring the pack designer and tool supplier to the same layout review once those details are available.

Yes, especially if changing gaps helps the gripper release but changes support underneath the next layer. Otherwise each supplier can improve their own drawing and leave you with two versions that no longer agree.

No damaged samples observed. This is a drawing concern before the proposed stack has been trialled.

Could a supervised packing trial answer the support question before you invest in the robot sequence? I'd let packaging define the trial rather than assume a hand-stacked example represents shipping conditions.

Packaging will define a trial. Integrator has requested the same final layout for the tool review.

That sounds like the right people now have the actual question. Ask for the trial result against that specific layout, including what wasn't tested, so nobody later reads a packing trial as proof of every transport condition.