I'd put the housing and fixture revisions beside that identity, since the right program can still describe a different physical arrangement.

And have the maintainer retrieve that package using their own access. I have asked for this on another handover: the author's account being able to open everything does not establish that the receiving team can.

There's a wait routine named in the screenshots but nowhere in the supplied notes. I'll use that for the walkthrough. I also want the export identified against what's installed, not just another archive arriving by email.

For that wait, record the ordinary condition, its source and where maintenance can observe it. Then say who investigates when it does not arrive. Do not turn a missing signal into a suggestion to force it.

Henry, would you put every signal on the operator sheet? I would keep the detailed source map with maintenance and give operators the observable symptom and escalation, otherwise the short handover becomes an electrical manual by accident.

Separate sheets are fine. I meant the maintenance handover Nina asked for. The operator's message should still lead to the same condition and support owner, not use another name for it.

The fixture assumption should include how the housing is presented for verification; I cannot infer that from a program name.

Integrator supplied an export list, not the package yet. The list includes the wait routine. We've booked the trace and I'm taking our fixture identification, because the screenshots don't show which nest they used.

Will the walkthrough include an ordinary pause that your maintainer must explain? A list of files would not let me decide what to check during that wait.

Callum's exercise is a useful acceptance check for the document, provided the test is agreed and supervised appropriately. Also ask the maintainer to find the revision and support contact without the integrator pointing at every answer.

Walkthrough done. We could trace the routine, but the supplied PLC sheet uses an older signal description. Nobody forced anything; we stopped at the mismatch. Integrator is checking the sheet with the PLC owner.

Did the fixture identity match, independently of that PLC discrepancy?

Keep the mismatch visible on the front status page until both owners agree the replacement description. Receiving the routine is progress, but maintenance still lacks the answer for that wait.

Has the actual package arrived now, with its revision tied to the installed copy? Earlier you had only the export list.

Package received and matched in the walkthrough. Priya, the nest identity also matched, and I've recorded that separately from the unresolved PLC description. Bruno's access check worked from maintenance's account, thanks for raising it.

That gives you several completed checks without calling the whole handover complete. Keep the pending PLC answer attached to the exact package you reviewed, so a later corrected sheet does not float free of its program revision.

That's where I'm leaving it today: retrievable package, fixture identity and routine trace recorded; ordinary-wait wording still with the two owners. The screenshots can remain illustrations instead of pretending to be the handover.