Planning our lathe spacer-blank handover with FR10. Machine supplier uses ready for request receipt; integrator uses it for loading-area availability. Which discussion would get us an agreed meaning instead of another revised label?
Ask them to describe both events separately in time order. For each, write who owns it, the conditions for setting and clearing it, and what the other side may infer. The same name is concealing a sequence disagreement, not just untidy documentation.
Please include what the shift sees during that wait. I am dealing with a support ticket where the capture matters; a future operator should be able to report which ordinary condition is missing, rather than just say the robot stopped.
Sam, keep that operator wording tied to the agreed condition, but don't let a proposed message imply the machine is available before its owner has confirmed the definition.
Yes, proposed wording only. I meant that the review should include the person who will explain a wait, not that David can decide the underlying condition by writing the message.
And keep the safety permissions outside this ordinary handshake definition. Both events can have useful meanings without either being a substitute for the cell's safety system. Ask the responsible designers to show that distinction in the interface notes.
Two-event draft sent with Elliot's delayed-area example. I've labelled the operator messages proposed. No supplier agreement yet; this is still a planning document.
Set one review owner to collect both responses, so an amended machine note and an amended integrator note don't become another pair of conflicting drafts.
Our interface lead will collect the replies and run those examples with both teams. I have not assigned new signal behaviour myself. Thanks, Clara; separating the events gave me something concrete to send.