Packaging has the insert drawing. Tooling only received carton dimensions. That explains part of this.

Make the lower layer visible beneath those bearing areas, Grace, so packaging can assess the actual spans rather than assuming every rotated carton is equally unsupported.

Include pallet-edge positions too. Different support underneath even when the carton orientation matches.

The edge position is worse than the middle. I've marked both for packaging.

Dispatch will consider fewer cartons. They want the extra pallet movements costed first.

That is a reasonable comparison, provided both candidates get the same packaging assessment; aligned rows do not come with a certificate of good behaviour.

Packing lead handles short orders. We haven't put that condition into the review yet.

Bring them in while the alternatives are still drawings, then, because a pattern that needs a whole layer every time may change the work more than losing two carton positions.

Any answer from packaging on the original gaps? That's still the basic unknown.

Original edge position isn't acceptable to packaging. Lower-count candidate needs filled-load and tooling checks next.

That gives dispatch a real reason to price the alternative, Grace. I'd keep short-order handling alongside those extra pallet movements so the comparison doesn't quietly assume every order fills the new pattern either.