The housing inspection-reporting attempt timed out, and our application reused the job label after restart. Python, PLC and controller times disagree. I cannot assign the acknowledgement to either attempt. What evidence would establish a link before I reconcile the incident report?
Look for an attempt reference or session-and-sequence association in the original messages and retained stores, and establish what the acknowledgement actually means. Preserve each source's ordering and any clock-offset evidence separately. Corrected-looking timestamps cannot create a missing request identity or turn receipt into inspection completion.
The protocol description defines request receipt, not completion. Our exported messages contain the reused label but no attempt reference. The developer is checking the underlying store; meanwhile the acknowledgement remains unassigned and the housing disposition is with quality, not inferred from that message.