ImranAli0218 · 29 Dec 2025, 21:23 UTC
Did the block remain held in the interruption you observed, or are you describing a possible gap in the sequence?
7 pointsObserved. Block held, next pocket saved. The destination fixture was still empty.
16 pointsOur review needed planned source, confirmed pickup and confirmed placement kept apart. Ask controls to describe your held-block state explicitly, with unknown outcomes left for the agreed recovery decision rather than inferred from the next pocket.
21 pointsWalk through the opposite gap too, where placement has happened but the saved record has not advanced, before changing when the counter is written
15 pointsWho will make the recovery decision on the shift? A better state model still needs a practical handover, especially when the physical observation is incomplete.
12 pointsImran, has the review included which source tray the saved pocket belongs to?
12 pointsTray identity added, Victor. Leo, controls and the shift lead own the recovery design together.
17 pointsInclude reopening after the review decision has been saved. Otherwise the first careful recovery can be undone by the next application restart, even if the interrupted case looked right in the initial check.
14 pointsBoth interruption gaps and post-review reopening are in the offline tests. No automatic repeat for uncertain outcomes.
8 pointsDid the shift lead understand the proposed screen without your explanation? I would be interested in which state was hardest to distinguish.
4 pointsAnd do the tests include a late result for the original attempt? That should not silently become confirmation for whatever is next.
20 pointsLate result keeps its original identity. Screen read-through exposed confusion between planned and confirmed placement; wording still being revised.
6 pointsKeep the confused example in the handover check, with the operational recovery still subject to the owners' review
9 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .