Our FR5 startup offers to repeat the inspection whose result it lost

The attempt identity was saved before submission. Our quality service has a result under that identity; I have asked its owner to reconcile it with the coupon and the installed job record.

Good place to start. Keep the physical coupon held under its existing identity while those owners compare the records, rather than putting it through a fresh inspection just to make your local file look complete.

Who owns that hold? A named place and person, not just a yellow row on the laptop.

Shift lead, with the coupon retained in our identified held-work location. Cover has that information. Nobody is being asked to rerun the job from the pending row.

Will a second restart keep that same held attempt, Aisha?

Pavel's right to ask. Fixing the first screen is little use if reopening the helper puts the row back on its automatic retry list.

And once the owner records a reconciliation decision, reopening must preserve that decision too. Uncertain forever is not the intended end state either.

Both cases are in the offline test plan: unresolved submission across repeated restarts, and a reconciled decision reopened afterwards. Definitely unsubmitted work remains separate; old ambiguous rows are not guessed into that category.

Has quality matched the original result yet?

Yes. Quality and the integrator matched the coupon, attempt and completed result. The authorised reconciliation is recorded; the original coupon does not need a second inspection to repair our application's missing save.

Then show cover that decision beside the original hold reason. Otherwise they get a green row with no explanation of what changed.

The draft keeps the submission uncertainty and the later decision in one history. Cover can see why it was held and who reconciled it; physical continuation still follows the cell's agreed response.

Did the repeated-restart test pass, including reopening that saved reconciliation? Those are the cheap checks that should fail before anybody puts the helper back into normal use.

They pass offline. We also interrupted while saving the decision; reopening did not invent a retry or lose the unresolved state when the decision had not been committed. Installed comparison remains due.

Keep the original recovered case in the handover example. It demonstrates why a result missing locally did not mean the inspection never happened, without asking the operator to make that judgement from an empty field.

Who is taking the installed comparison while the helper is still held?