Packaging only wrote support at ends. Integrator has a closed-tool picture, no opening or withdrawal among neighbours. I've asked them to mark the actual regions together.

Include the permitted incomplete loads. A final full-layer view may show support supplied by cartons that are absent during placement or on a small order. Operations should say which arrangements actually belong to the job.

Noah's scope point is useful, and I would add label-facing requirements if dispatch has them. They can constrain any alternative orientation later; there is little value in approving an arrangement that then needs manual turning or relabelling nobody priced.

Dispatch provided both constraints. Packaging rejected the rotated end row because required bearing strips bridge gaps. Tooling has proposed an aligned pattern, with label visibility retained but fewer cartons per layer.

Has the aligned pattern's release path been checked through the full placement order? Correcting the support issue does not establish the gripper's exit, especially if the carton orientations and neighbours have changed.

And has dispatch compared its extra pallet work? The lower count is part of the proposed workflow, not a detail to remove before the purchasing meeting.

Aligned pattern clears the reviewed tool states and meets the defined bearing requirement. Dispatch hasn't accepted the extra pallet movements; they want the order-level cost comparison before choosing this candidate.

Then retain the technical findings with the candidate and leave the workflow decision open. A geometry and support review cannot choose what those additional pallet movements are worth to dispatch.