The supplier says their existing signal name can't change. I need to know whether that prevents a clearer interface description.

The existing name can be documented with its actual meaning. The integrator still needs a separately defined source for the later condition; relabelling receipt in your notes cannot make it evidence that the loading area is available.

I'd ask both teams to walk through a request received while loading remains unavailable. That exposes the difference without another meeting spent voting on the best word.

And ask what someone should see while it waits. The underlying conditions belong with the responsible engineers, but a trainer needs to distinguish request received from permission to proceed under the approved design.

We walked through that case. Both accept that receipt can happen first. The interface draft now has two meanings, though clearing after interruption is still disputed.

Record each signal's owner, assertion and clearing conditions, then work through timeout, communication loss and restart. Keep the ordinary job interface separate from the independently reviewed safety functions and access conditions.

Zara Barnes, I'd avoid calling the second ordinary status permission in the operator draft yet. Nadia says its interruption behaviour is still disputed.

Fair correction. I meant the operator should understand the agreed sequence, not infer permission from this unfinished ordinary status. The actual access conditions still need their proper review.

The normal sequence now has joint agreement and separate descriptions. Restart clearing remains an explicit open decision. I can draft the normal prompts, but the handover isn't approved.