They were reviewing different lower layers. Packaging's copy closes the gaps that tooling needs for withdrawal.

Which version is in the price?

The higher-count top view. It doesn't identify either lower-layer version. I've asked purchasing to mark the count provisional.

That explains the apparent agreement. I wouldn't ask either reviewer to approve the other person's drawing in isolation now; put the conflicting bits together and let them say what actually has to change.

Our packer once drew the gaps on a spare carton bottom because everyone kept discussing the outer rectangle instead of the bearing edges. It was a slightly scruffy prop, but it ended an argument the presentation slides had kept alive. Your actual filled carton and a clear section may do more than another overhead view.

Beth's physical example would help at the joint review, provided the section identifies the real packed product and the lower-layer arrangement being discussed.

Joint review rejected both current combinations. Tooling can leave the gap or packaging can have the support, but neither drawing achieves both. Straight rows are now a separate candidate.

Do straight rows keep the labels visible?

They do at a lower count. Dispatch is checking the extra pallet changes on its ordinary order sizes.

Could packaging offer a support change instead, or is that outside this purchase? Worth knowing before the straight option wins by being the only one somebody finished drawing.

Outside this purchase. The product packing is fixed for these orders. We have recorded that boundary rather than leaving a support redesign as an unpriced alternative.

Then the straight candidate should get the full order walk, including any part-finished pallet coming back. That was where our extra handling hid.

That walk is done. More pallet changes, but the waiting and return route fits the available space. Tooling's straight-row withdrawal check is still incomplete at the final corner.

What is incomplete at that corner?

Finger opening beside the neighbouring carton. The current view shows the placed box but not the open fingers, so the reviewer has not accepted release there.

Keep that exact missing state on the drawing request; a new picture of the closed tool at placement will not answer it.

Did the open-finger view arrive? Interested whether the lower-count option actually survives the last bit of its route.