LucyArcher0393 · 4 Jul 2026, 01:41 UTC
Ask packaging to mark where the filled box must bear, not just which way it points; then put those regions over the lower layer and actual pallet deck.
7 pointsThat is what is absent. The current drawing has outside rectangles, gaps and the direction arrow only.
16 pointsCan packaging use a representative filled box for that decision? The outside dimensions do not show where the contents load the carton, especially if the internal packing is doing part of the support work.
8 pointsKeep the internal packing arrangement identified with it, because a support decision for one packed box should not silently cover another insert sold under the same outside size.
6 pointsWhy alternate these layers? Is it an assessed requirement or the proposed starting layout? That affects how freely you can compare other patterns, though neither answer makes these gaps acceptable.
18 pointsAnd preferred direction doesn't tell us whether every rotation is prohibited; it tells us to stop guessing at what the packaging can carry.
25 pointsYes, Jamie. I meant the actual loaded packing arrangement as evidence for that assessment, not a reason for us to invent a blanket rule against rotation. We still need packaging's bearing requirements.
6 pointsThat makes the purchasing question clearer too: which exact packed configuration is the proposal offering to handle? It needs to be the one packaging assesses.
11 pointsReece, alternation is a proposed layout, not a requirement. Toby and Louis, packaging has our actual filled box and insert reference for the assessment.
4 pointsPackaging has marked two required end strips. Two positions on the current rotated row leave part of a strip over a gap. Those positions are not accepted; the support question now has a specific answer.
8 pointsAre those same gaps used by the tool? A support change could consume space the gripper needs, which is why I would keep the drawings joined now.
12 pointsAlso keep the first layer in view. A corrected carton-on-carton relationship does not establish the same support over the pallet deck. The case and pallet contacts may need different checks even if the plan view looks identical.
23 pointsReece, one gap is used for withdrawal. Packaging proposes shifting the row to support the end strip. Tooling is checking that candidate; Toby, the actual deck is included separately for the first layer.
13 pointsHave them show the open tool leaving among the cases already placed; a clear closed hand over the shifted box is not the movement that concerns Reece.
4 pointsAnd retain the unshifted version as rejected, not as another available pattern. Otherwise two visually similar files can outlive the explanation for changing one.
9 pointsIf a sheet or a lower count is proposed later, cost the complete option. We have no evidence here that either is required, or that a sheet would be free to handle.
21 pointsThe shifted row supports the box but blocks open-finger withdrawal in the complete model. It is rejected too. We have not selected a sheet arrangement or a replacement pattern.
12 pointsThen let the next candidate change the count if dispatch allows it; preserving a full-looking layer is a poor reason to preserve two known problems.
10 pointsDispatch will consider fewer boxes. We have removed the alternating pattern from the launch proposal and retained manual pallet loading while a new candidate is assessed. No robot tooling order from this drawing.
24 pointsThat is a clear decision on the present drawing. I would be interested in the next candidate's support and withdrawal results together, rather than another apparently complete rectangle layout with the difficult part left between departments.
16 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.