I'm writing a separate UR5e bush-loading interface and we've hit the same word problem again. Machine supplier uses ready for request received. Integrator uses it for loading area available. Everyone nods at the sequence until I ask which meaning is on the wire. How do I get one agreement they can actually implement?
On a previous review we separated receipt, machine process state and the conditions required for access; I would have both teams define each signal's meaning and ownership, with safety functions addressed by the cell's engineered safety design rather than an ordinary ready label.
They've agreed to stop using ready without qualification. Request accepted and loading available are now separate entries. The machine supplier still hasn't said what clears loading available.
Ask what makes it true, what makes it false and what a restart leaves behind. A descriptive name won't stop a stale value being read as current availability.
Walk the exchange with a bush still held when communication drops. That's where our teaching example stopped making sense. Both sides thought the other one would know which physical step had happened.
We tried that on paper. They disagree about who withdraws an accepted request after reconnect. No agreed rule for an uncertain held part either. Glad we aren't pretending this is just a naming fix.
Keep the outstanding physical outcome separate from cancellation of an ordinary request, because cancelling a message cannot establish where the bush is or make access conditions true.
Our controls lead now owns the combined interface review with the safety designer involved for access conditions. Operator recovery responsibilities are being written with maintenance, not left as 'contact supplier'.
Have they identified what each side retains through restart? You need that answer to distinguish an old accepted request from a new one with the same job description.
Retained attempt identity proposed, with unresolved state if the two sides cannot reconcile it. The supplier agreement is still in draft. Thanks, Ella, the restart case uncovered another vague use of current job.
And put the awkward example back through it when they agree. My first rewritten table looked lovely until someone asked what happened if the reply arrived after we'd declared the request lost.