Which FR10 fixture-confirmation change explains this connector-loading wait?

NathanAli0199 · 16 Mar 2026, 20:04 UTC

Reply to discussion
NA
NathanAli0199
This connector job has a retained lead-in and a matched installed job and fixture record, so I can show support more than the stopped robot. The fixture-confirmed input drops briefly before the loading wait, while the request stays present. The phone view does not show any obvious fixture movement. I have asked the package author what that confirmation physically detects before calling it a robot fault. What else would help maintenance distinguish a genuine change at the fixture from an unreliable indication?

21 replies

JA
JaneBarnes0597
Replying to NathanAli0199

Get the detection point identified first. A steady-looking fixture can still have movement outside the video.

17 points
EM
EmmaBaker0463
Replying to NathanAli0199

Does the retained input drop before the application changes its message, or are those timestamps from separate clocks?

3 points
NA
NathanAli0199
Replying to EmmaBaker0463

Same recorder sequence, Emma Baker, with the drop preceding the wait; Jane, the author identifies the latch target, which the phone view hides behind the fixture body.

25 points
VI
VictorAbbott0011
Replying to NathanAli0199

Has maintenance inspected that target and its mounting yet?

17 points
NA
NadiaAbbott0030
Replying to NathanAli0199

Could the video request show the latch area from a useful fixed view? I mean for observing normal operation, not asking someone to lean into the station to chase the target.

9 points
MI
MiaAllen0296
Replying to NadiaAbbott0030

Nadia, I'd get maintenance's inspection first. A better video still won't show everything about the lead and mounting, and Nathan already has a repeatable input symptom.

2 points
NA
NathanAli0199
Replying to VictorAbbott0011

Maintenance checked the target and mounting without finding looseness, but found damage at the sensor lead's strain relief; the circuit is being examined by the electrician before we treat that as the cause.

13 points
NI
NinaBaker0501
Replying to NathanAli0199

Our wait discussion changed once the expected input was properly named. Ask the electrician to keep the damaged lead identity with the finding, not only a note saying wiring repaired.

14 points
EM
EmmaBrooks0811
Replying to MiaAllen0296

Mia, repeated drops aren't quite the same as reproducing the cause. Nathan has kept that distinction, which seems sensible while the circuit is being checked.

21 points
MI
MiaAllen0296
Replying to EmmaBrooks0811

Yep, I meant the observed drop. Not a diagnosis of the lead.

8 points
NA
NadiaAbbott0030
Replying to NathanAli0199

Nathan, is there a spare lead available, or is this going to sit with purchasing once the electrician identifies it?

14 points
NA
NathanAli0199
Replying to NadiaAbbott0030

The electrician has identified the damaged lead and confirmed intermittent continuity in its assessment; our spare matches the specified lead, Nadia, and maintenance is reviewing the routing that put strain on it.

15 points
JA
JaneBarnes0597
Replying to NathanAli0199

Good to have an actual finding. Who owns the routing correction?

13 points
EM
EmmaBaker0463
Replying to NathanAli0199

Will the repeat check use the same request and confirmation history you sent support?

10 points
NA
NathanAli0199
Replying to EmmaBaker0463

Maintenance owns the routing correction with the fixture supplier checking the arrangement, Jane; Emma Baker, yes, the requested history will be retained through the agreed complete loading checks, not just a static input check.

5 points
VI
VictorAbbott0011
Replying to NathanAli0199

And the spare stock count changes when that lead is fitted.

1 points
NI
NinaBaker0501
Replying to VictorAbbott0011

Victor's point matters for the covering shift. The spare that solved this stop won't solve the next one from the stores shelf if nobody replaces it.

17 points
NA
NathanAli0199
Replying to NinaBaker0501

Replacement lead and revised routing are fitted, with the used spare removed from available stock and replenishment ordered; maintenance is completing the loading comparison with the same identified connector job.

20 points
NA
NadiaAbbott0030
Replying to NathanAli0199

Did the complete comparison stay clear of the earlier drop, Nathan?

19 points
NA
NathanAli0199
Replying to NadiaAbbott0030

Yes, the agreed repeated loading checks completed without the confirmation loss, and the stored traces match the expected sequence; support has closed this occurrence against the lead damage and routing correction, with the maintenance finding attached.

7 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.