Yes, current product pack and its carton reference are identified. The disagreement is about support in the rotated positions, not which box we mean

Then have packaging mark the required bearing regions through both layers, with tooling showing opening and withdrawal against that same section... a top view of box outlines keeps too much hidden.

Include the actual pallet under the bottom layer too, not an imaginary solid base

Sarah, has Chloe said the pallet causes a problem, or are you adding that as another condition to check? I'd keep those separate in the request.

Another check. Not claiming we've found a bottom-layer fault from this description

Understood. The two rotated positions are the observed concern. Pallet support is in the review scope, not on my list of established faults

Does the tool section actually show the fingers leaving, or only holding the box?

We considered fewer cartons on another job to make room, but that was one option there, not a recommendation to reduce yours. Has anyone proposed an alternative pattern for this pack?

An aligned option is proposed. No lower-count option yet. The revised tool request includes withdrawal, Oscar; the original drawing stopped at the held position

Ask what changes for dispatch with that aligned option as well. I mean the whole handling arrangement and any partial loads, rather than assuming the same carton count means the same work.

Dispatch is included. I'm keeping the alternative provisional until the support and access reviews return. Not trying to turn a simpler-looking drawing into an answer on its own

Packaging has rejected the two rotated positions shown for this filled case. The aligned candidate still needs the complete tool-route review. We have withdrawn the original pattern from the purchase scope

Thanks for posting the actual decision. Different from just saying the drawings are improving

When is the aligned candidate's route review due?