Decide what a capacity report can claim
A capacity report may need to say either that a valid arrangement was found or that the count is proven maximal under the model. Those claims require different evidence. Best found means the engine retained a valid candidate without a supported proof that no larger arrangement exists. Optimal means one of its supported proof conditions establishes the returned count. Neither status certifies handling, package strength, or a physical loading operation.
The model searches identical rectangular footprints at permitted right-angle orientations. Its result includes count, coordinates, method, area upper bound, proof field, and whether the placement work cap was reached. Preserve that evidence when the count affects planning. A screenshot of a large number omits the assumptions and may omit the status that qualifies the claim.
Compare the engine's two proof routes
One route is equality with an area upper bound. For 1200 by 1000 mm and 600 by 400 mm cases at zero allowances, a valid five-case mixed construction fills the footprint. Count five equals the area bound five, so the result is optimal with an area-upper-bound proof. There is no remaining room for a sixth case area under the declared model.
Another route uses a separately verified fixture. The site's representative 5898 by 2352 mm floor with 1200 by 800 mm footprints at zero allowances returns eleven. Its simple area bound is fourteen, so area equality cannot explain the optimal label. The engine matches an independently verified fixture for these exact supported inputs. The proof field is verified-fixture. Changing dimensions or allowances can remove that fixture match.
| Input comparison | Count | Area bound | Status | Proof basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1200 by 1000; cases 600 by 400; zero allowances | 5 | 5 | Optimal | Area upper bound |
| 5898 by 2352; footprints 1200 by 800; zero allowances | 11 | 14 | Optimal | Verified fixture |
| 12032 by 2352; footprints 1200 by 800; gap 10, clearance 10 | 23 | 29 | Best found | No supported proof |
The two floor rectangles are calculator inputs and historical presets, not guarantees about an assigned container. The figures here describe the local engine's behavior. For real equipment, confirm the assigned unit's dimensions and door information. A verified result for one rectangle does not transfer automatically to another one with a similar equipment name.
Repeat the input and inspect the status text
Use the five-case area-proof example. Save the pattern family with the result. Uniform gives four for the same footprint, and its grid status has a different scope from the mixed search's optimal status.
The eleven-position floor example should report a verified geometric optimum. The cleared twenty-three-position example instead reports best found with upper bound twenty-nine.
Review a changed count without assuming a software defect
A one-millimetre dimension edit or a newly required gap can change a complete row and also remove a verified-fixture match. A lower count and a best-found label can therefore follow from changed inputs rather than a regression. Compare the full numeric records before comparing the headline counts. If every dimension, permission, allowance, and engine revision matches yet output differs, preserve both records for investigation. Store the relevant status text with each changed run. If inputs differ, state that difference in the capacity review instead of treating the older proof as transferable.
Choose wording that preserves the distinction
For the third comparison, say that the search found a valid twenty-three-position arrangement with an area ceiling of twenty-nine. Do not say that twenty-nine fit, that twenty-three is proven maximal, or that the six-position gap must be recoverable. A loose bound can exceed the true maximum. Only additional valid placements or another applicable proof changes the evidence.
For the verified fixture, state the exact dimensions and allowances with the optimal claim. Reducing clearance to zero solely to regain a proof label does not satisfy an operation that requires clearance. An input-specific proof is meaningful only if the inputs match the actual question. A more constrained best-found plan can be more useful operationally than a tight optimal comparison using unsuitable assumptions.
Keep the search budget separate from the proof
The engine uses deterministic strip enumeration and several MaxRects rules. It limits placements to protect browser work. A cap notice is evidence that the run is incomplete, not proof that a larger count is impossible. The public interface does not offer an arbitrary search-time or iteration query parameter. Do not add unsupported settings to a link and treat their presence as a deeper search.
Rerunning unchanged inputs should reproduce the current engine's count, coordinates, and status. Determinism makes a result repeatable; it does not make it optimal. If a software revision changes the search, retain the prior evidence and identify the revision when comparing outputs. Avoid reporting only a percentage improvement without explaining whether its baseline and new count have the same geometric assumptions.
Status evidence record for the cleared floor
Tool: calculator floor planner. Units mm. Floor: 12032 by 2352. Footprint: 1200 by 800. Rotation: allowed. Gap between floor footprints: 10. Wall clearance: 10. Returned count: 23. Area upper bound: 29. Status: best found. Proof field: none. Placement cap not reached. Retain coordinates, search method, input link, and the engine revision used. Door access, weight distribution, and the loading process remain separate checks.
Read the methodology alongside the result rather than replacing its status with a confident headline. A reviewable capacity report makes the strongest claim its evidence supports and leaves the remaining optimization question visible.