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.

Build that combined drawing for packaging and your integrator. Include a repeated, unrotated layer as a simpler candidate; it may suit the support direction better.

@TheoAbbott0062 Don't let simpler sound like approved. An unrotated layer still needs its load and stability assessed with the actual contents.

@CarlaChan1097 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.

I thought alternating layers always made a stronger stack. Is that too simple?

@AnnaBell0677 Too general. The arrangement changes where loads pass through the cartons. Your packaging reviewer needs the actual construction and support geometry to judge it.

@TheoAbbott0062 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.

@NoahBrooks0803 Did you tie the pattern to a pallet specification? Ours just says pallet size, which now seems a bit thin.

@DanielBell0652 Specify the deck arrangement as well as the footprint. Two pallets with the same outside size needn't provide the same support underneath.

@DanielBell0652 Add the complete tool geometry and adjacent cartons at the corner positions. A tool-centre point alone can't establish whether the body or fingers overlap nearby packaging.

I can show the pattern questions more clearly, but I can't yet say support and access both work. I'll keep the pattern decision open for the combined review.

@DanielBell0652 The open acceptance decision follows from the two remaining requirements: the pattern must establish both support and tool access.