How do I show packaging the gaps our FR5 fingers need?

No, Fiona, packaging has the earlier pattern and tooling has the revised one. Elliot, neither copy shows the lower layer properly.

Get those copies aligned before the meeting, Amy. And bring the packer, because any change to the layer pattern will also change how they recognise and finish a partial pallet.

Would a section through the disputed box help? I find a plan view difficult to read when one team's gap is another team's missing support.

Yes, Hazel. I'd still want the full pattern beside it; an excellent local section can miss what happens to the rotated box elsewhere in the layer.

Amy, does the packed box have the same support requirement in both orientations?

It has a preferred bearing direction, Fiona. Packaging wants the marked edges supported in either orientation, and is marking those on the current pattern for tooling.

That gives the packer something concrete too. Otherwise preferred direction sounds like an optional preference they can ignore on the last few boxes.

David, I would ask packaging to supply the wording for that part. Amy has said where it wants support, but not what handling variations it permits.

Packaging is doing that, Hazel. It has also asked tooling to compare a lower-count pattern, but that is only an option at present.

Include the extra pallets in that option's cost. I've seen a cheaper tool look less cheap once dispatch has to handle more completed loads.

And who prices the partial-pallet work?

Our dispatch lead will price that with the packer, Fiona. The integrator is combining the support sections and withdrawal views; no pattern has joint approval yet.

Leave the eventual partial-pallet method in that joint review. Calling the remainder manual still leaves the packer needing an assessed access arrangement and a clear picture of what goes where.