Our handover for sample verification with Universal Robots UR5e in a maintenance review of a commissioned inspection cell, using a sample housing, is mainly pendant screenshots. I'm trying to improve it while the original integrator is available. The pictures lack revision details and cover the main routine without its subprograms, fixture assumptions or expected ordinary PLC signals.
Start by identifying the installed program revision and its corresponding controlled export. Can you establish that link before describing the routine's dependencies?
Our installed revision matches a controlled export, but I've identified screenshots from an older program copy. Their different routine names explain the mismatch in our notes.
Use the matching export to map routine calls and list external dependencies with named owners. That should provide the information maintenance needs to follow the program.
@NinaAli0240 That description could sound operationally sufficient, but routine relationships don't establish a valid recovery procedure for an interrupted job.
@HazelBrown0919 You're right to limit my wording. The map supports understanding the program; recovery instructions must come from the responsible integrator's approved procedure, not from inferred call order.
Retain the images as labelled historical material, with their established revision references, so they explain the discrepancy without appearing to describe the installed program.
My own program handover omitted an external recipe, leaving the main routine understandable in isolation but its configuration source difficult for maintenance to locate
@PriyaChen1177 I've found an external recipe reference in our verified export that doesn't appear in the screenshots. It's now on my dependency list for source identification.
I've settled the handover structure: start from the matching export, map dependencies and identify their owners. I'll count it operationally ready only after the responsible integrator verifies the references, including recovery.