Why does our UR5e handover jump over the housing check?

Check what the complete project means to them. I've been handed the robot files with the PLC project quietly excluded. Complete from somebody's desk is a flexible term.

And the configuration that the missing check reads. Source alone may not reproduce its behaviour.

The integrator says the check is in a separate library. They assumed we already had it. We don't. I've asked for that and the matching configuration, Nora.

Include the actual fixture identity in that configuration review, Hassan; our support discussion on another station depended on which fixture had been fitted, and the general program name did not explain it.

Who is allowed to change that library after handover?

Rebecca, ownership matters, but first ask whether Hassan receives maintainable source or only a supplied component. Those lead to different support arrangements, neither answered by a folder name.

Leo, plus its version. Two copies called latest are not a dependency list.

It's supplied as a component. Source isn't included in their offer. We can request changes through them, but nobody had told maintenance that before this discussion.

Then give maintenance a support route for failures inside it, with the version and inputs they should capture; do not leave the operator instruction ending at contact someone.

Does that support arrangement cover the PLC side too?

This is where I would want a simple ownership table. Routine, owner, version, backup location, support contact. Then walk one fault through it and see where the table stops helping.

PLC owner is separate, Rebecca. We have both contacts in the draft now, plus the library version and fixture reference. Leo's fault walkthrough is booked with maintenance; the handover is not closed yet.

Include restoring the configuration in that walkthrough. Otherwise the backup can look complete until needed.