@OliverAbbott0015 I tried that in a discussion. Several people read the same restart line differently. So yes, we've handed over an instruction that doesn't agree with itself.

@JamieChen1165 Use the conflicting interpretations to revise the instruction into condition, permitted action and escalation criteria. After the responsible integrator reviews it, check understanding again through an unprompted teach-back.

Because I wrote the ambiguous instruction, I'm concerned that teach-back could feel like blaming the operator. How can I frame it as a check of the handover?

On my setup, I asked people to find where my guide forced them to guess. That invited corrections instead of making them defend a wrong answer.

Once the recovery sheet is clear and available at the controls, the team should no longer need to call you about these interruptions.

Not if the system can't tell them what's physically happening. Better wording can't create a recovery path for an unknown held-workpiece state

You're right; I promised too much from a sheet. The guide should support defined recoveries and clearly escalate unknown states. Some calls are the correct outcome.

@OliverAbbott0015 Our original handover only showed an empty gripper at startup. It never covered an interruption with the workpiece still held. That's a real gap.

I've settled how to revise the handover: visible condition, permitted action and a clear help route, checked by the integrator. I'll only treat it as ready after the teach-back supports it.

@JamieChen1165 Making readiness depend on reviewed guidance and demonstrated understanding gives the handover a clear basis for acceptance.