MayaAbbott0040 · 22 Aug 2025, 06:57 UTC
Put both definitions on the same page before that meeting. Ask each team what event causes its signal and what the other team may do after seeing it. Easier to discuss than whether ready is a good word.
8 pointsTables side by side now. Machine supplier confirms receipt does not mean access is available.
18 pointsThen split receipt from availability in the proposed interface. Also ask what remains pending between them and who owns it. That waiting period is where a neat signal list usually runs out of explanation.
10 pointsOur last class got further passing request cards across a table than staring at the interface spreadsheet; make one person delay the answer and see who thinks the job has vanished
13 pointsWe can do that before coding anything. No point debugging a disagreement faster.
14 pointsWalkthrough found the request being cleared on receipt while the integrator still expected it during the wait. Both teams are revising ownership.
6 pointsWhich team tells the operator why it's waiting, Maya? Otherwise they'll get a green received lamp and no explanation of why nothing happens
11 pointsDoes the proposal distinguish ordinary availability reporting from the safety conditions for access? I would want the responsible reviewers to make that boundary explicit
16 pointsBeth, integrator owns the operator display. Priya, safety reviewer has flagged that distinction; ordinary receipt cannot authorise access.
20 pointsTry cancellation during the wait next. The teams need to know whether cancellation was merely requested or actually accepted, particularly if availability changes at the same time.
17 pointsThey found conflicting cancellation assumptions too. Draft now includes a pending-cancel state, with the unfinished handover still identified.
22 pointsGive a tutor or shift lead those cards without the authors whispering the answers, because our beautiful first version only worked while I explained what each card secretly meant
17 pointsShift lead tried the draft. Asked who to call in the review state. No answer on the sheet yet.
2 pointsPut the actual first contact there, plus what the operator must leave alone while waiting; named review state isn't a recovery instruction by itself
17 pointsWill both suppliers review the operator wording too? It should describe the behaviour they have agreed, including what remains unresolved
4 pointsAnd keep the crossing-response cases with the final interface document. Future changes need those examples, not only the tidy table you eventually agree.
10 pointsPriya, both suppliers will review it. Beth, escalation wording is being added. Interface and safety approvals still outstanding; no finished handover claimed.
13 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .