Keep the raw files and lay out each source in its own order. Which events are definitely before or after the application restart, without relying on a clock comparison?
An FR10 acknowledgement with two possible attempts
ChloeBrooks0831 · 26 Jun 2025, 03:22 UTC
18 replies
Python timeout precedes restart. Its new request follows. PLC acknowledgement position against them is uncertain.
18 pointsOn one investigation the file modification time was mistaken for the event time, so I would first identify what each timestamp represents before estimating any clock offset
15 pointsThese are recorded event times. Original exports preserved. No measured offset between the clocks.
14 pointsDoes the acknowledgement carry anything besides that reused label? A run number or item reference might help even if the clocks don't.
21 pointsOnly the label. No run number or item identity in that message.
8 pointsThen I would leave the acknowledgement unassigned in the incident report, with the two possible attempts shown, rather than choosing the order that looks most likely
24 pointsAgreed. But keep looking for independent evidence, such as an application receipt record or an operator observation tied to one physical item. Missing clock alignment need not make every other source useless.
16 pointsWas anyone at the station when the app restarted? They may remember whether a result was visible before it closed, though I'd label that as recollection.
24 pointsOperator remembers a result, but cannot say whether it was fresh. Screen retained its previous value.
10 pointsThat recollection cannot establish a new result without the value's observation time, and I would check whether the displayed timestamp changed on refresh even when the underlying observation did not
6 pointsIt did. Display time was refresh time, not observation time. Separate defect logged.
18 pointsUseful finding even if the old acknowledgement remains ambiguous; it explains why a person could reasonably remember seeing something the incident record cannot confirm as new
6 pointsWill the replacement screen show when the value was actually observed? That would help the next operator describe the event without having to know the logging code.
6 pointsAnd give attempts a persistent identity through the exchange. The display fix improves the evidence people see, but the repeated job label still lets different attempts look identical to the software.
20 pointsBoth repairs assigned. Original acknowledgement remains unassigned. No result credited to either attempt from it.
11 pointsWill you post whether any independent evidence turns up? Interested in the original event as well as the proposed repair
12 pointsFor the new tests, deliver an old acknowledgement after restart deliberately. That will show whether the identity change actually prevents the association that the historical record cannot settle.
6 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .