Our packaging reviewer marked the bearing strips on revision B. The tool supplier's withdrawal view is revision C, with the rotated cartons moved. Someone combined them into an approval sheet. I've taken that sheet out of circulation and asked for one review of the actual proposed arrangement.
We had a similar combination where both reviewers had done useful work, just not on the same geometry. Ask the integrator to identify the intended common revision and carry the unresolved comments into it, rather than simply replacing B with C in the heading.
Integrator confirms C is the candidate. Packaging hasn't checked the moved cartons there. Their B comment is retained as B-only, with the combined approval withdrawn.
Good. Don't make packaging rubber-stamp C because tooling already likes it. They may need a different arrangement, and that would put the withdrawal question back on the table too.
That explains why a heading change would have been inadequate. Include the pallet support and any proposed sheet in the common view too; neither should be supplied by imagination when the cartons underneath move.
Nothing ordered. Purchasing was about to use that combined approval sheet, which is why I wanted it withdrawn rather than quietly corrected in my folder.
Pending. Packaging has the complete C view and retained filled carton. Tooling will revisit access if packaging requests changes. No accepted pattern yet.