I've already seen aligned cartons with revised spacing remain unapproved while support and access were checked; on my new UR5e component-case pattern, rotated boxes bridge gaps against their support direction, so what should the joint review decide before I accept either this pattern or an alternative?
Ask packaging which bearing regions and stack conditions it will assess, and tooling which placement stages it will examine. Put those against one numbered layout so a packaging change and a tool-access change cannot quietly produce different versions of the proposal.
What evidence supports the stated direction for the filled component case? The direction note identifies your concern, but the review needs more than an arrow to decide whether these particular gaps are acceptable.
The case specification gives direction but no gap allowance, so I'm asking packaging for the loaded-case requirements rather than assume the alternative aligned layout solves them.
If the eventual alternative lowers the count, keep the extra pallet handling in the comparison too; that's usually where our supposedly small drawing change becomes somebody's shift work
Yes, but count and labour come after identifying viable candidates, Hassan. I wouldn't let an attractive operating estimate substitute for missing support evidence on either pattern.
Can tooling show release with the neighbouring cartons already present? On my comparison, better support left less room for the fingers, which is why I would keep both teams looking at the same stage.
And include the packed-case construction under review. Outside dimensions may stay the same while the internal support arrangement changes; the packaging answer needs to identify which filled case it actually covers.
Current packing specification attached, and both teams have the same placement-order drawing; I have requested full-tool release views with the earlier cartons in place.
Have the shared views produced an actual finding yet? I'd be interested whether the original gap or the withdrawal space becomes the first constraint you can establish.
Packaging has requested filled samples before giving a finding, and tooling is still completing the withdrawal views; neither pattern has earned approval yet.
Then mark the count as proposed wherever it appears in planning. Having a better review package is useful progress, but the old maximum-count figure can live on in an estimate long after everybody here remembers it was unverified.
Done; planning now carries the unresolved support and access conditions beside the count, and I've kept the eventual pallet-handling comparison on the list rather than price an unapproved arrangement.