I want the support direction tied to the actual packed contents here too. Our FR5 alternating component-case layer fits on the pallet but turns some positions over gaps. What should packaging and tooling establish jointly before that direction note becomes an acceptance decision?
Ask packaging to mark required bearing over the actual pallet and lower layer, then have tooling show the full opening and exit on the same candidate. Include the placements with neighbours already present. A direction note without the filled-case requirement leaves the tool designer guessing what has to remain supported.
Who deals with leftover cartons if the count changes? Your review could solve a support gap and create a handling job the small dispatch team hasn't been asked to take on.
Dispatch owner is now involved. Packaging found unsupported bearing in the rotated positions and rejected the original layer. We are comparing an aligned lower-count option, not asking someone to approve the same drawing again.
Keep the rejected drawing marked where planning finds it. It is simpler than the alternative, so somebody may otherwise use it because it looks like the finished answer.
Has the aligned option had a full hand-release check, and is its lower support the actual pallet or merely an imagined continuous floor? Both need to agree with the arrangement packaging assesses.
Model uses the actual deck and lower layer. Tooling found the current hand clears its defined opening and withdrawal. Packaging accepts the specified full-load support arrangement, but partial-load handling remains to be assessed.
Then don't close the leftover-carton question on that full-load result. Dispatch still needs to know what it may send on a short order and what work remains with it.
Dispatch has retained that as an open operating requirement, and the cost comparison remains provisional. We have a full-load candidate worth taking forward, not approval of every order or a commissioned cell.