AlexAdams0124 · 27 Jul 2025, 21:45 UTC
Give each occurrence its own time, full message and step name. Keep the tray identity with it. Pick the one with the clearest matching trace, rather than combining the best-looking pieces from both. That would manufacture a third incident nobody observed.
13 pointsFirst clip has no message. Second has the message and trace. I'll send the second as its own occurrence.
15 pointsInclude what happened just before that pause. Did the operator move the tray, change the job, or simply watch the next step wait? Sequence matters more than another minute of a stationary arm.
13 pointsTray replaced before that occurrence. Not claiming it caused the pause; maintenance is checking the located input.
23 pointsHas the seller received that specific set, Alex? I'd ask them to answer against its incident time. Otherwise you may get a diagnosis based on the first clip while you're talking about the second.
10 pointsSent with a new occurrence heading under the existing ticket. Seller asked for the ordinary input state at the wait.
-2 pointsGet maintenance to supply that from the matching capture. Also describe the tray's physical location in the photograph. A signal reading and a tray that looks seated from one angle still need interpreting together.
24 pointsInput was low. Maintenance found debris at one locator during inspection. Repair and checks planned, no completed outcome yet.
12 pointsKeep the first unexplained occurrence open too. This finding may explain the second one, but you said the first lacks the message. I'd rather leave that limit clear than claim the whole intermittent problem is solved.
21 pointsAgreed. Two separate entries remain: first insufficient evidence, second under repair review. Thanks for stopping the cases merging.
13 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .