The layer drawing came back marked acceptable, but packaging says they were shown empty box dimensions, not our filled cartons. These have end supports inside. In the rotated rows, several supports land over the spaces below. I'm the one collating this review and apparently I've collated two different conversations. What should the common view include so we stop doing that?
How did our UR5e pallet drawing get approved without the cartons?
ElliotBaker0509 · 2025年9月20日 18:15 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
7 条回复
Show the filled-carton support areas against the layer underneath, alongside the tool's placement and withdrawal space. Ask packaging and tooling to review that same drawing revision.
19分That underneath view is what's missing. Ours shows each layer on a blank pallet outline. Looks wonderfully neat when nothing has to sit on anything else.
13分Include the bottom layer too. The pallet deck has gaps of its own.
16分What exactly was approved on the returned sheet? Dimensions only, or the complete stacking arrangement?
-1分Aisha's question matters for the review record. Don't leave the old approval attached to a wider claim than its author intended.
21分Aisha, packaging confirmed it was an external-dimensions check. I've corrected my summary. Felix, the combined view now includes the pallet deck; packaging wants to compare another arrangement before a filled trial. Tooling hasn't assessed that alternative yet.
11分Keep both candidates in the joint review until that happens. The alternative needs its own release and withdrawal check, even if packaging prefers the support.
10分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .