HenryBarnes0525 · 30 Mar 2026, 14:51 UTC
Does Python retain the original request elsewhere, before the summary export dropped that field? A raw journal or saved outgoing request might let you recover the relationship without aligning the clocks.
6 pointsFound a raw request journal. It includes a session identity and the PLC sequence in each outgoing request; the export kept only the friendly name.
9 pointsDoes that session identity change after the restart, or can the same sequence appear in both sessions? I'd want the scope of the number nailed down before calling it a match.
16 pointsSession changed. PLC retained the same session reference with its receipt, so the pair matches the earlier request. New attempt has a different pair despite the reused name.
14 pointsWhat does the matched event confirm: receipt of the request or the inspection result? The operator wording should not turn a successful match into more than the event contains.
21 pointsReceipt only. Earlier inspection outcome remains unknown. Quality has the coupon held, and the new attempt hasn't inherited that acknowledgement.
17 pointsMaintainer corrected the export to retain the session/sequence pair and repeated the two-session example. We can now assign this receipt without pretending the old timestamps line up. Result still missing.
23 pointsThat's a useful recovery from the raw record. Does the routine handover export now include the same fields, or only the diagnostic copy you tested?
23 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.