ChloeBell0657 · 25 Jun 2026, 17:16 UTC
Split them by meaning first. One acknowledges a request; the other expresses an agreed machine condition. Each needs an owner, prerequisites, receiver response and what ends it. Renaming alone will not tell either side what to do.
8 pointsCan the machine acknowledge while it's still busy? That should end the word argument.
11 pointsYes, Henry. The supplier's example acknowledges during machining. I've shown that beside the integrator's current interpretation, and both accept they describe different events.
13 pointsThat example is worth retaining as a test case. What happens if the request is withdrawn after acknowledgement, before availability?
12 pointsHazel, would you make them include a new request after that withdrawal too?
23 pointsYes. The review should show how the old acknowledgement becomes invalid and how a fresh request is distinguished. Otherwise a normal sequence can look correct while the second attempt inherits yesterday's answer.
12 pointsWe've walked through busy receipt, withdrawal and a fresh request using the proposed table. The old acknowledgement cannot satisfy the new request in that version; the integration lead caught a missing clear condition during the walkthrough and corrected it.
14 pointsBoth suppliers have accepted the corrected interface definition, including separate availability conditions and interrupted-state ownership. That resolves my wording dispute. Implementation and the cell's validation remain ahead of us.
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.