@MiaChan1079 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.

@ClaraBell0611 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.

So just moving the increment isn't enough? I'd hoped this was one badly placed line, which would've been embarrassing but convenient.

@ClaraBell0611 Persisting the transfer stage as soon as each action finishes should let the recovery sequence determine the correct point to resume.

There's still a gap between the physical action and the save. A stop in that gap leaves you guessing, just with a more descriptive variable.

I overstated what persistence provides. A retained stage helps interpret the interruption, but recovery still requires reconciling it with established physical conditions and selecting the permitted 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.

In our test, the tool still held the workpiece after interruption, but the display directed the operator to begin a new pickup. The message didn't match the physical condition.

Wouldn't a grip signal settle that? Or can 'gripper closed' mean it's holding nothing?

@ThomasBarnes0538 The meaning depends on the installed sensing arrangement. You need the integrator to establish what evidence distinguishes a held workpiece from an empty or indeterminate tool, rather than equating closure with possession.

Am I correct that placement followed by an interruption before state persistence could leave recovery treating an occupied destination as available for another transfer?

That's a possible mismatch to include in the design. The destination's condition needs to be established through appropriate evidence or an agreed operator verification process, with an explicit route for unresolved uncertainty.

I still can't establish a reliable recovery decision from the saved and physical states. I'm keeping the job out of normal production while that remains open.

Your unresolved recovery decision is a concrete limit on readiness. Leaving the job out of normal production reflects that limitation.