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.

@JasperAllen0290 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.

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.

Agreed; I meant a comparison option. Packaging must assess both arrangements with the specified cartons and contents, including support and stability.

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

@MeiBarnes0603 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.

@CarlaChen1184 Was your accepted pattern linked to a particular pallet specification? My drawing currently names only the overall pallet size.

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

@JasperAllen0290 For access, show the whole tool beside neighbouring cartons at the corner placements. The centre mark won't reveal body or finger overlap.

@NaomiChan1115 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.

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