My application misses brief PLC requests during FR5 fixture inspection. Who owns and clears each ordinary job signal is unclear; safety functions are separate. What should the interface review settle?
At our interface review, drawing a longer pulse was everyone's first suggestion. It didn't answer what either side should do if the other was disconnected. Ask the two owners to write the request lifecycle together: what identifies the work, what proves receipt, who may clear each state, and how incomplete or conflicting evidence is handled. A held request with an agreed acknowledgement may be part of the design, but it isn't complete just because the pulse lasts longer.
The current sheet says clear on response, without defining receipt or completed inspection. I will take both meanings to the owners before any timing change.
Include a delayed response from the previous request in that discussion. Otherwise they can agree beautifully on the word response and still apply it to the wrong job after reconnecting.
Both owners have the examples now: missed request, delayed receipt, completed inspection and reconnect with retained state. They haven't agreed the revised interface yet.
Have they separated receipt from completion in the draft? That's the first point I'd look for when the revised sheet comes back, before worrying about the chosen signal names.