Cannot assign the FR5 acknowledgement after our application restarted

Application logs have a local counter, but it resets on restart and was not sent with the request. Controller log has its own sequence. Nobody has mapped that back yet.

Preserve those originals and get the program owners to map whatever events they can. Don't overwrite the clock values to make the rows line up.

Does the acknowledgement contain the submitted job label, or is the application adding that label when it logs receipt?

Application adds the current job label. The reply itself does not contain it. That makes the labelled acknowledgement row much less useful than I thought.

Who uses that report to decide whether a plate needs another inspection? I'd want them told about this before they treat the second labelled row as a second completed attempt.

Have the owners found a reliable event linking either request to the controller sequence?

One request is linked by a retained transport trace. The later acknowledgement still cannot be assigned. Harish, quality has been told not to use these rows as inspection completion evidence. Noah, controls supplied the interval spanning both attempts.

For the repair, carry a restart-safe attempt identity through the exchange where the interface permits it. If it can't echo identity, the design needs another explicit correlation mechanism.

And don't solve it by making the timestamps prettier. Clock checks help investigation, but delayed replies can still arrive while a different attempt is current.

Controls and the application owner are reviewing an interface change with an echoed attempt identity. We will test delayed replies after a restart as well as normal completion. The old incident remains partly unknown.

Will the revised report show why a reply was left unmatched, or merely leave another blank for the shift lead to chase?

Zara, does quality have a separate record for the actual plate from that old incident? The software repair won't answer what happened to it.

Include duplicate and out-of-order replies in those tests too. A unique label is useful only if the receiver checks it before changing the attempt state.

Noah, quality reconciled the plate separately and retained that decision with the incident. Harish, the proposed report gives unmatched replies their own reason field. Alex, those tests are included. We have not deployed the interface change yet; at least the old report no longer claims two known results.