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.
UR5e carton support comment attached to the wrong layer revision
LeoCarter0971 · 2025年11月29日 09:15 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
10 条回复
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.
10分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 Their B comment is retained as B-only, with the combined approval withdrawn.
7分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.
8分Did the lower layer move as well?
4分Yes, two positions in each layer changed. I've included both layers in the request. The old sheet only showed the upper one.
21分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.
19分Is this still a comparison of alternatives, Leo, or has somebody ordered the C tooling already?
8分回复 WillChen1183
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 Purchasing was about to use that combined approval sheet, which is why I wanted it withdrawn rather than quietly corrected in my folder.
23分Thanks for catching it before the order. Common review still pending, then?
9分Pending. Packaging has the complete C view and retained filled carton. Tooling will revisit access if packaging requests changes. No accepted pattern yet.
15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： .