We've only got top-view rectangles and a tool centre mark. The carton note specifies support direction, but the layer drawing doesn't show it.

Give packaging and the integrator a drawing combining those details. A repeated unrotated layer is worth assessing alongside the alternating one because it may better suit the specified support direction.

@NoraBrooks0844 The repeated arrangement remains a candidate, not an accepted solution. Its support and load stability still need assessment for the cartons with their actual contents.

@TobyArcher0405 You're right to qualify the suggestion. I intended an alternative for comparison, with both patterns requiring packaging assessment of support and stability using the specified filled cartons.

@NoraBrooks0844 Doesn't alternating the carton directions strengthen a stack, or is that assumption too general here?

Too general. The arrangement changes where loads pass through the cartons. Your packaging reviewer needs the actual construction and support geometry to judge it.

The layer overlay shows carton edges above gaps below. That gives me something specific to mark for packaging instead of saying the pattern feels wrong.

On my dispatch setup, the top view hid the pallet deck gaps completely. Adding the deck drawing changed which positions needed packaging review.

Did you tie the pattern to a pallet specification? Ours just says pallet size, which now seems a bit thin.

@LouisBennett0746 Specify the deck arrangement as well as the footprint. Two pallets with the same outside size needn't provide the same support underneath.

@LouisBennett0746 For access, show the whole tool beside neighbouring cartons at the corner placements. The centre mark won't reveal body or finger overlap.

The tool outline overlaps the next carton at one corner in our offline layout. Lovely rectangles, inconvenient gripper. I'll flag that position for the integrator.

Ask the review to include approach and release geometry. Even a clear final position wouldn't show that the tool can reach and leave it as required.

@TobyArcher0405 I'll keep that review offline and include every layer. I'm not going to explore the corner with manual jogging.

I've got a useful review basis now: show support and the complete tool on the layer drawings, then have both specialists assess it. That answers my starting question; the pattern itself remains conditional on their findings.

@LouisBennett0746 That gives both reviewers the same concrete arrangement to assess. Pattern acceptance can then follow their findings.