the same inspection name belongs to two attempts

Python has the reused name and a local counter that restarted too. The PLC acknowledgement has a sequence value, but Python did not save that value.

Does the controller retain that sequence with the request?

Controller history retains it, but the corresponding Python request details are missing. We have two attempted submissions under the same name.

Clock correction may narrow the window, but it won't create the link Python never recorded. Don't let a neat merged timeline make that receipt look assigned.

Is the offset between clocks known for the occurrence, or measured only now?

Only now. One laptop clock was corrected after the incident. I can't safely apply its current difference to those old lines.

And keep timeout distinct from a rejected inspection.

It says check failed, which reads like a rejected coupon. Quality has the piece held because its inspection result is unassigned, not because a defect was found.

Then change the explanation around that held state with quality. The operator shouldn't need this entire thread to discover what failed means.

For the next recorder, retain an application attempt identity that is not reused on restart and its explicit relationship to the PLC exchange reference.

Author is adding that relationship. Support has accepted the existing event order with the acknowledgement unassigned, and is investigating the timeout without waiting for an impossible exact match.

That's useful. Keep the known controller and PLC sequence in the ticket even though the Python side is incomplete. Uncertain ownership doesn't make every event useless.

Test a restart with an old receipt arriving after a new attempt exists.

That replay is specified, including the old receipt remaining associated only when its explicit identity matches. Unknown receipts stay unresolved. The implementation is not finished.

Has the covering operator seen the new held-state wording?

Yes. They identified the coupon as awaiting reconciliation, not rejected, and named quality as the next contact. The historical receipt still cannot be assigned; we have closed the misleading wording, not the old inspection outcome.