LuisBaker0521 · 30 Aug 2025, 05:08 UTC
Put a normal request on paper and ask each side what happens next. Name receipt separately from area available before arguing over which ready is correct.
24 pointsMachine team says it can acknowledge while still finishing the previous operation.
16 pointsThen that acknowledgement cannot serve as loading-area availability in the integrator's sequence. Give those conditions different names in the proposed interface.
6 pointsDo both teams have the same view of when the request ends? Renaming ready helps, but it may reveal a second disagreement about clearing the request.
8 pointsNo. Machine team clears on receipt. Integrator expects it retained until the transfer is complete.
19 pointsYou need one agreed lifecycle, not just two renamed bits. Identify who raises each condition, who acknowledges it, what keeps it valid and what clears it. Walk through a busy machine as well as the easy idle case.
10 pointsOur display called both states waiting. Name the thing each side is waiting for.
7 pointsOwen, could your operator tell which team to call from the revised wording? That's where our first draft usually falls short.
7 pointsDraft now separates request received, loading area available and transfer complete. The suppliers are reviewing the clear conditions together.
20 pointsInclude connection loss in that review. A retained request can look perfectly reasonable on each side while they disagree about whether it still belongs to the current transfer.
10 pointsJasper, yes, after we added the station name and an escalation contact. Waiting alone sent everyone to maintenance.
6 pointsBusy-machine walkthrough agreed. Connection loss exposes an old request that the integrator wants to retry automatically. Machine team hasn't agreed.
7 pointsLeave automatic retry out until the outcome can be reconciled. A lost connection does not tell either team whether the requested work happened. The interface owner needs to define what evidence permits recovery.
7 pointsWho is acting as interface owner here? Two suppliers agreeing their own halves is how you got this ready problem.
5 pointsOur controls lead is taking that role. Unknown outcomes will remain held for the reviewed recovery path.
18 pointsHave the controls lead keep the interrupted example with the interface document. It explains why request received must not be presented as completed, even after the labels look tidy.
9 pointsNormal sequence definitions agreed. Recovery still under review. New names are in both drawings; no automatic resend approved.
-2 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .