The turned cartons rest on gaps in our FR5 layer picture

They have the same filled-carton sample now. Tooling proposes a support sheet, but no material or placement task is defined. I've asked where it would live and who would place it.

Include whoever covers that task. One available packer is not the whole staffing arrangement.

I'd price a simpler pattern too, with fewer cartons if necessary.

We had a support-sheet proposal which looked cheap until the person placing it tried reaching the far corner. The material cost barely mattered next to the workstation change. Nora's questions about storage and placement are part of deciding whether the sheet is practical, not administration after the clever bit.

Hazel, did you keep the sheet or change the pattern?

Changed the pattern on that job. Fewer boxes, easier tool, no new sheet task. That doesn't tell Nora what to buy; her actual packed construction and dispatch space still need checking.

Did the extra pallet changes erase much of the saving?

Packaging won't accept the unspecified sheet. Tooling will compare a defined sheet arrangement with straight rows. Neither has a completed placement-and-exit check; the packer is not volunteering for an imaginary extra task meanwhile.

Henry, some, but not all. We counted the normal orders and the real changes. The lower-count version still suited us; the best-looking layer would have needed more work than our small orders justified.

That's why I wouldn't rank Nora's options by cartons per layer alone.

Nora, is the short-order finish included in both candidates?

And ask dispatch where an incomplete pallet waits. That can use space missing from both drawings.