I check where the spacer is, which step stopped and whether the saved position can still be trusted. None of that is in the sheet. It just says call me for a problem.

Then capture the information that supports that judgement and distinguish cases they may handle under an approved method from cases needing review. The handover should not turn your undocumented judgement into an instruction to guess where the spacer went.

Don't make empty pocket mean skip it automatically, because that pocket could be empty after a pickup while the spacer is somewhere you haven't accounted for

I'd include the interrupted state separately from an observed empty source pocket before a request. They can look similar at the tray, but the evidence about a held or placed spacer may be quite different.

Luca, would you give those different screen messages, or one explanation with the unknowns listed?

Depends on what the system can establish. I'd rather a plain uncertainty message with the relevant job and locations than a precise-sounding diagnosis inferred from one empty pocket. The approved next action needs to match that uncertainty too.

We have a draft with separate observed-empty and interrupted-uncertain cases now. The latter does not offer resume from the saved pocket. Controls still needs to review what the screen can reliably establish.

Who covers review when you are absent? A better explanation can still end at the same unavailable person, which would leave the support arrangement unchanged.

And give that person the actual job and fixture identity, not a message saying Wendy's spacer problem

That would be a memorable label and a terrible handover.

Maintenance lead will own the uncertain-state review, with shift cover named. Thanks Dinesh, I had improved the decision text without changing the part where everything still depended on me.

Will an intended operator read the draft without you explaining it first? Interested in what they think the uncertainty message permits, rather than whether they say it looks clear.

Include break cover in that reading too, Wendy. A regular operator may supply missing context from experience that the person covering lunch does not have.

Our draft review exposed exactly that: one cover operator read held for review as waiting to resume automatically. We are changing the wording and keeping the unresolved physical state explicit.

Make the actual behaviour agree with the words before handover, because a clearer warning isn't enough if reopening still offers the old saved position as a restart point

Has controls checked reopening as well as the interruption screen itself?

Not yet. That is now an explicit review case, alongside the revised text and shift escalation. I have not called the handover complete or authorised independent recovery from these drafts.