Which first layer belongs under our approved FR5 repeat diagram?

No separate first layer, and packaging's support comments refer only to the upper repeat; the pallet outline is there without its deck gaps

Then the support review isn't complete. We've had tooling acceptance mistaken for approval of a whole layer; don't let an upper-layer check quietly approve the bottom one too.

Get the real pallet deck onto the first-layer sheet. The operator needs one unambiguous starting arrangement, not instructions to build whichever repeat layer seems to fit and hope the next one sorts it out.

Include the final carton's release and withdrawal on that first layer. A deck opening and a gap between cartons may offer very different space for the fingers.

Julia, agreed about the instruction, but I would wait for the joint check before choosing which repeat layer starts it. The missing geometry may require a different first layer.

Yes, I meant the resulting approved instruction. Not asking the operator to solve the layout on the pallet.

Integrator is adding our specified deck and comparing two starting arrangements, with neither borrowed as an automatic answer from the upper repeat

Are both using the same pallet specification? My review got messy when a better-looking support sketch quietly acquired a different base underneath it.

Same specified pallet, Anika; any different pallet would need its own proposal because dispatch hasn't agreed to buy or segregate another type

Anika, that specification question also belongs at receipt. We once modelled the purchased pallet correctly and still had a different repaired one arrive at the station. Worth asking dispatch how the intended supply is identified.

Caleb, did that mean changing the drawing or changing what dispatch supplied? Those are different bills.

Dispatch separated the agreed pallets in that case. We did not redesign the pattern around the stray one. Mina's team may need a different answer if mixed pallets are part of its actual work.

Mina, does your current pallet supply match that one-specification assumption, including returned pallets? The agreed drawing needs a workable incoming check.

Returned pallets aren't used on this line; dispatch supplies the one specified type and is confirming its incoming checks, so Caleb's case hasn't become a second pallet option here

Keep the first-layer picture beside the upper repeat in the eventual instruction. Separate files with similar names are asking the next trainer to invent the missing connection.

Has either starting arrangement passed packaging's review yet, Mina?

Packaging supports the first candidate, but tooling still questions the last withdrawal; second candidate remains unreviewed, so neither is a joint approval yet

That leaves a specific comparison for the integrator. Does the second candidate keep the proposed upper layers unchanged, or will its support pattern require those to be reviewed again as well?