Our setup uses Fairino FR5 for fixture-to-tray transfer with a polymer sleeve in a shared parts handling bench, with 228 planned. I wrote a pick, place and advance sequence that completes uninterrupted runs, but stopping between those actions can leave the saved pocket inconsistent with the physical state. I need a recovery design before relying on it for normal production.
@IsaacCarter1042 Where does the index advance in your trace, relative to placement confirmation? Start with the sequence you've, not where the number ought to change.
@LiamAdams0142 It advances before placement confirmation. So after a stop, the number can describe the next intended pocket rather than a transfer we know finished. That's on my sequence.
@IsaacCarter1042 Map the transfer stages offline, with an agreed completion confirmation. Have your integrator define how saved state is reconciled with tool and pocket conditions; unknown conditions need an explicit recovery route.
@LiamAdams0142 Would correcting the position of the index update fully address this? I had hoped the problem was limited to that single sequencing error.
@LiamAdams0142 Updating a stage after an action doesn't eliminate the interval between the physical event and persistence. An interruption there can leave the saved stage inconsistent with reality.
@ReeceChan1080 You're right; saving stages alone doesn't guarantee recovery. The saved stage guides reconciliation, and the physical conditions still need confirmation before an approved next action.
On my setup, one index could mean either 'still carrying' or 'already placed'. Giving those states names made the design discussion much less circular.
The early index update explains part of the mismatch. I still need reviewed recovery handling for uncertain physical states, so this isn't ready for normal production.