One UR5e wait message, two possible receiving conditions

HazelAllen0310 · 25 Nov 2025, 17:22 UTC

Closed
HA
HazelAllen0310
I've paired our sleeve-loading clip with its program step and receiving tray identity. Support now asks whether the tray was ready. The PLC author tells me the waiting message can cover two missing conditions, but the display names neither. I can ask for the trace; I am less sure what the operator should be told in the meantime.

12 replies

CH
ChenBell0616
Replying to HazelAllen0310

Ask the author to name both conditions and what the current screen can actually establish. The operator shouldn't have to choose between hidden causes from a message that was written to cover both.

11 points
HA
HazelAllen0310
Replying to ChenBell0616

One condition is tray seated; the other is permission from the next station. The message just says waiting for tray. Our operator has been rechecking the seat every time.

16 points
RE
ReeceAli0210
Replying to HazelAllen0310

That's wasted effort built into the wording. In our ticket the useful step was assigning the shift lead the matched occurrence and asking for the relevant confirmation history, instead of collecting more wide shots.

10 points
MI
MiaAdams0122
Replying to HazelAllen0310

Who owns changing that message and the related handover instruction, Hazel? The support trace can explain one event without improving what the next operator sees.

25 points
CH
ChenBell0616
Replying to ReeceAli0210

Reece, agreed on getting the trace. I wouldn't assume the seat checks were pointless on every stop though. We still don't know which condition was missing on Hazel's captured occurrence.

8 points
RE
ReeceAli0210
Replying to ChenBell0616

Fair correction. I meant making the operator repeat the same check for two different possible causes. The recorded stop still needs its own answer.

1 points
HA
HazelAllen0310
Replying to MiaAdams0122

Mia, our local integrator owns the PLC message and the handover page. They've accepted that the wording needs reviewing. The trace for our occurrence is with them, not interpreted yet.

16 points
CH
ChenBell0616
Replying to HazelAllen0310

Keep the interim instruction honest about that uncertainty. It can say the held job needs the named support person when the displayed information doesn't establish the next step, without teaching the operator to guess which input is missing.

17 points
MI
MiaAdams0122
Replying to HazelAllen0310

Can the support person see both source conditions with the relevant timing, or do they only have the same combined message on another screen?

7 points
HA
HazelAllen0310
Replying to MiaAdams0122

They have a diagnostic view of both, but it shows current values only. The saved trace is what will tell us about the occurrence. I have made that distinction in the draft instruction.

11 points
RE
ReeceAli0210
Replying to HazelAllen0310

Thank you for spelling that out. A current green indication can otherwise get repeated in the ticket as though it was green when the job stopped.

15 points
CH
ChenBell0616
Replying to HazelAllen0310

When the integrator returns the explanation, ask them to walk the operator through that same example using the revised wording. That's where you'll find out whether it makes the two conditions understandable.

18 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .