简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
EmmaBaker0463 · 2025年8月29日 20:42 UTC
Yes. Use the filled-carton details, not an empty box outline.
13分Packaging has the filled specification, and I have asked them to mark the bottom support areas.
14分Ask why those positions need rotating at all. If it's just because alternating looks familiar, there's no reason to protect the original pattern from a proper comparison.
18分Planner wants labels visible on both long sides of the load; no other reason given yet.
-3分Label visibility needs solving too. It doesn't make the gaps disappear.
22分Bring dispatch into that comparison. They may be able to work with a different label arrangement, but let them describe the actual scanning and load-removal tasks before assuming it is an easy change.
2分Elena, agreed on asking dispatch. I wasn't suggesting hiding labels and calling it done. I want another arrangement priced instead of everyone defending the first drawing.
20分Dispatch can accept labels on the two short sides, and packaging is reviewing a non-alternating option with that orientation.
13分Does the tool supplier have that option too? The changed carton orientation could affect where the fingers approach and leave.
15分Yes, both teams now have pattern revision P3 with the support areas and proposed finger spaces shown.
11分Have they returned a joint answer on P3, or are the two checks still separate?
9分Emma, keep P3 provisional until both answers are in. A shared drawing isn't a shared approval.
16分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .