A common revision is necessary, not sufficient. Identify the packed contents and the allowed partial loads too; two reviewers can use the same carton drawing while assuming different loads inside it.

Packing engineer owns the decision. The two reviews currently assume different contents in the same outer box.

Are both contents variants actually intended for this pattern, or has one reviewer used an obsolete packing arrangement? That changes whether you need two assessments or one corrected input

And keep the support issue separate from placement order, because moving the last carton first cannot create bearing beneath an unsupported region

Both contents variants are current. One has an internal tray; the other uses individual partitions.

Then give each packing variant its own bearing requirement within the common pattern review. A shared outside size does not establish that packaging can approve both from the same support assessment.

How will dispatch distinguish the variant when selecting the reviewed pattern? That identification belongs in the decision, especially if only one packing arrangement is eventually accepted.

Order packing reference identifies it. Packaging has accepted the tray variant's bearing, but rejected the partitioned variant at two rotations.

Has tooling assessed the tray variant's actual sequence yet? I would not call its pattern approved from the bearing answer alone, even though that is a useful split result

That also leaves a real planning choice for the partitioned boxes: another assessed pattern or a separate handling route, not an operator improvising at the pallet

Tooling review still outstanding. The partitioned variant remains on its existing packing route; no common robot pattern approved.