UR5e quote assumes support under the turned row

Luis, count only. Sarah, incomplete orders aren't included. Packing says they happen regularly.

Then retain the lower-count option as a serious comparison. More cartons per full layer is not automatically less work across the order mix, especially with frequent partials.

Who resumes those partial pallets?

And who covers that person? An exception plan owned by one familiar name isn't much of a shift handover.

Packing supervisor and deputy. Joint review rejected the unsupported turn; straight rows are being compared with both people involved.

Make the straight-row placement order explicit as well as its final pattern. Support and finger access can change during the build, including where an ordinary short order ends.

Could you walk one returning partial through the proposed process before pricing new software for it? That may expose a missing identification step cheaply.

I'd like to hear that result. Our nicest pallet option turned awkward when the packer came back to it after another order.

Walkthrough found two partials sharing the same handwritten order label. Supervisor could tell them apart; deputy couldn't. We need distinct pallet identities in the proposed return process.

That's exactly the handover case worth keeping.

Price the identification and return work in the revised candidate. Do not erase the cost because the supervisor can currently improvise around it.

Revised cost includes it. Straight pattern's support and tool-route comparison is acceptable for the next design stage, but the return identification method still needs a trial.

Have the deputy try that trial without the supervisor supplying the answer. Otherwise the same ambiguity can pass twice, now with a more expensive label.