ClaraBennett0698 · 25 Jun 2026, 15:47 UTC
Ask what stays false after the request arrives. Make them answer that separately.
16 pointsWe had a review where everyone agreed with the same word because they were imagining different moments. Drawing the normal sequence didn't expose it. Asking the machine person to leave the machine busy after receiving the request did. Then the robot person had to explain what they would wait for, instead of nodding at the word ready.
12 pointsPriya, that is a better meeting question than my usual plea for definitions. People can agree on a noun for hours.
15 pointsI've put the busy-machine case first. Receipt can occur in that case; availability cannot. We need names that preserve the distinction in the interface table.
9 pointsWho owns withdrawing availability when the machine state changes before the transfer?
14 pointsAnd does the integrator actually receive that withdrawal, or just remember the earlier ready?
4 pointsLouis, yes, the receiver's interpretation belongs beside the sender's definition; otherwise Clara gets two improved documents that still disagree with each other.
18 pointsNaomi and Louis, both teams now put availability under the machine side and require the receiver to respond to its loss. They're still arguing about the interrupted-transfer state.
-1 pointsI wouldn't rush that last argument. Before transfer and during transfer may need different responses, and neither should be improvised from a signal name. Have them identify the physical state they can establish in each case and the authorised recovery owner; that is where our tidy table grew useful.
20 pointsWe have separate receipt and availability entries signed by both teams. Interrupted transfer stays an explicit design issue, with the machine and integration leads jointly responsible for resolving it.
15 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.