It came in the standard proposal. The note says improved stability, with no packaging assessment attached

Ask for that claim to be assessed for the actual filled cases; I wouldn't infer it from the alternating appearance.

An aligned arrangement deserves consideration as well, but it needs its own support and access review. I would not replace an unsupported claim for one pattern with an equally unsupported claim for the other.

Aaron, nobody has called the aligned one accepted. Oliver needs a reason to spend money comparing options, not a warning every time he names one.

Fair criticism. I meant the comparison request should specify what packaging and tooling need to establish for both, rather than just ask which drawing they prefer.

Start with the observed conflict, Oliver. Which required support regions sit over which gaps, and where does the proposed tool need room? That gives both teams a concrete question without ordering a finished redesign yet.

I have marked the support regions from the carton information. The tool drawing does not show withdrawal, so that is still a separate missing piece

Does the carton information cover your filled case, or only the supplied empty box?

It describes our specified packed case. Packaging is checking its applicability to the proposed stack. I am not treating the marking alone as approval

Then ask for the withdrawal route against that same marked version. No use having one team answer the original standard pattern while the other quietly works from your revision.

And put somebody in charge of collecting the two answers. Otherwise you'll still be the person stitching together emails next week.

Integrator is coordinating a limited comparison of alternating and aligned options. Packaging has the same case details. That is the scope being priced, not an order for the tool

Thank you for clarifying the scope. When the comparison returns, check the bottom-layer support on the actual pallet too; the carton-to-carton views won't answer that part.