简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
RebeccaArcher0430 · 2025年12月18日 13:19 UTC
Have packaging mark the required support for the actual packed construction, then let tooling check withdrawal against those marks on the same revised section; don't just change the carton name.
4分Packaging has identified the current construction. The old support marks sit under a different part of the contents, so they cannot simply carry across. Tooling still has the old section marked accepted.
0分Then keep that acceptance tied to what tooling actually reviewed, Rebecca; it shouldn't become a blank signature for a section whose carton and bearing areas are about to change
6分Are old and new cartons both still arriving?
6分Maya Barnes's question matters to the operator instruction too. A replacement drawing for the new carton may not tell dispatch what to do with old stock still waiting beside the station.
6分Only the current carton arrives now, Maya Barnes; the old stock is exhausted, so I don't need a two-carton process, just the right review for the one we use
22分That narrows it. Is the toolmaker reviewing the changed bearing areas as a new constraint, or only checking that the external carton outline is unchanged?
10分External outline staying the same is exactly how this sort of change looks harmless in a top view, while the important support underneath has moved
11分Toolmaker has acknowledged the changed bearing areas. A lower-count pattern and a different withdrawal concept are proposed, neither accepted. Integrator owns the combined revision and the eventual operator drawing.
7分Keep the full-order handling and partial-pallet work in that comparison. Changing the layer can move effort into dispatch even if both candidates eventually satisfy support and clearance.
13分Will dispatch review both candidates before either is priced as the chosen method?
5分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .