Show placement, opening and withdrawal against the neighbours too. A support that fits under a parked carton can still block the hand getting out.

Dispatch chose the count. Packaging has not approved this rotation. The combined view is now back: one loaded carton edge crosses a finger channel in the layer below.

Does packaging require continuous bearing along that edge, or specific supported regions? The distinction could change what modification is even worth drawing.

And do not call the channel a tooling requirement until the complete exit has been shown. A line labelled clearance does not establish its necessary width or location.

Could the two designers mark their requirements on that same view, with the unexplained areas left visibly unresolved?

What has dispatch observed about partial loads? Ask for actual examples before assuming its preferred full-layer count saves work.

Packaging needs bearing across the indicated loaded region. Tooling confirms its current exit uses that channel. Dispatch often moves partial loads, so the maximum full-layer count is not the only operating case.

There are two confirmed requirements now, not necessarily only one solution. A changed tool, packing support or pattern could each affect them, but each option also needs its preparation and partial-load work described so dispatch can compare usable methods.

Who owns that comparison? Two suppliers can each propose the cheaper half and leave the workshop buying the missing half later.

I would include aligned layers as one candidate, though I don't know whether their stack behaviour suits Jack's packaging. Fewer rotations alone isn't an approval.

The packaging lead owns the comparison with tooling and dispatch. They are pursuing an internal packing change that moves the load away from the channel, with the existing arrangement retained as the baseline.

Have they evaluated a filled case with that change yet, or only moved the bearing marks on the drawing?

Only a proposed insert layout so far. No new filled-case result. I have not changed the approved packaging specification or accepted the pallet pattern.

Keep the insert cost and packing work beside the claimed carton-count benefit. It may be a sensible option, but it would be misleading to price the original packing operation while assessing the changed internal support.

And keep partial-load handling in that same comparison. It was the reason the full-layer count stopped being the whole argument.