BenBennett0718 · 26 Jul 2026, 08:26 UTC
At the actual packed box, I'd say, before anyone promises that alternating automatically makes a stronger stack. Get packaging to mark the support requirements and tooling to show how it releases each position in the proposed order.
15 pointsPackaging has the carton specification. I'll ask for the support marks on the layer drawing.
21 pointsInclude the tool opening and exit, because fitting the closed grip beside a box doesn't tell you whether it can let go and leave.
13 pointsWhat's actually been assessed by now, Ben? Thread's been up a while. Don't want to talk you through a support review that packaging has already rejected.
5 pointsNo rejection yet. They've requested filled samples; their first marks show where evidence is needed.
-2 pointsIs the intended packing orientation controlled upstream? A correct outer label may not establish how the contents were placed.
8 pointsLeah, yes. Seen an insert treated as symmetric when it wasn't. Packaging should confirm the actual load path, not just draw arrows copied from the carton print.
14 pointsPacking supervisor is checking that with the samples. Tooling has supplied release views; packaging assessment still outstanding.
6 pointsDo those release views use the same layer revision packaging is checking?
5 pointsThey didn't. Thanks, Maya; I've sent the marked revision back before we compare conclusions.
18 pointsKeep the mismatched view out of the meeting pack. Not because it is useless, but because otherwise half the room will point at the easier picture and think you've all reviewed the same stack.
3 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.