TimChambers · 25 Aug 2026, 08:10 UTC
What does each team say happens when the request arrives but the area stays unavailable? Ask them to describe that one sequence without using ready.
8 pointsKeep the ordinary process indications separate from the safety permission scheme. Receipt, availability and permission to move should not become three definitions tucked underneath one reassuring word.
11 pointsThey now agree receipt can happen while availability is false. Machine team proposes two distinct ordinary indications. Integrator accepts that meaning, but timeout handling is still only described as retry.
3 pointsRetry what? Asking for status again and submitting another request are not the same thing, and the operator may reasonably read that word as doing the action again
12 pointsWhat evidence does the waiting side retain after it times out? That determines whether it can still recognise a late response to the original request.
19 pointsThe draft has no agreed retained identity. Integrator meant another status enquiry; machine supplier read retry as a new handover request. We have removed that word until the transaction lifetime is defined.
14 pointsThat is a useful disagreement to catch on paper. Ask both to carry the same request through loss of communication and a late reply, including which side may end it. Renaming retry will not supply that missing ownership.
6 pointsThey have the late-reply case now. Receipt and availability definitions are agreed; request lifetime and the operator's response to uncertainty remain open. No physical interface changes made.
5 pointsWhen they return it, have the covering operator read the proposed wait screen without the author translating. That is where a technically precise paragraph can still turn into an ambiguous button
20 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.