The ends of the two turned cartons on the outer row; I overlaid the required bearing areas from our packing drawing on the actual lower-layer layout, and both cross a gap.

Put that overlay beside a section before paying for another full layout, because the packaging reviewer may be able to rule the pattern out without anyone building it.

Has packaging rejected those positions, Anika? I cannot tell whether you have their judgement or only the overlay.

Nora, would you bring one filled carton to that section review as well?

Yes, Emma, with its packing reference; I meant avoid building a whole trial pallet around a disputed arrangement, not avoid looking at the actual product.

Reece, packaging has now rejected the two positions after reviewing the filled carton and section; the same-direction alternative has their support agreement, and the integrator is checking its complete tool movement.

Does that alternative add a pallet exchange during an ordinary order?

It does for our longer orders, and the packer has pointed out that the spare pallet needs a waiting place we omitted from the first drawing.

That is worth costing now, including the packer's route to the waiting pallet; I would rather see the real labour than an optimistic carton count beside a blocked aisle.

Where is that waiting place going?

The adjacent bay can hold it without taking the aisle, but then we lose space used by the other packing job; after costing that trade and the extra exchanges, we have decided against the UR5e for this carton run.

That seems a reasonable place to stop, though I would retain the support comparison for whoever next proposes an ingenious turned row.

Both drawings and the packaging decision are with the job information; the robot proposal is withdrawn, and the packer is keeping the existing arrangement rather than becoming its unpaid workaround.

Useful that the packer saw it before the bay disappeared.