Cannot choose which FR10 attempt owns this acknowledgement

The reporting code adds the label, Felix, and I have asked controls for the original message rather than the spreadsheet row.

Keep the original logs unchanged while they look. Put any proposed time alignment in a separate working view, with the assumptions beside it. Otherwise the next person inherits your best guess as a recorded time.

Ravi's question first, Owen. No point arguing which inspection finished if the message only says a request got there.

Ravi and Felix, controls says it confirms request receipt, not inspection completion, so I have removed the completed wording from my incident summary.

Can the controller's local event order link that receipt to a request? We resolved part of another incident from a fuller capture, but I would leave yours unmatched unless the retained evidence actually supports the link.

Also ask for the interval before the application restart. The useful earlier request may be outside a trace cropped around the timeout.

Bruno and Felix, the fuller trace links the receipt to the first request using the local sequence; Sara, quality has held the identified housing and is handling its disposition separately.

So what, if anything, do you know about the retry now?

Keep the received wording attached to that first request too, so the reconstructed link does not acquire a completion claim again.

The retry was submitted in the Python log but has no matched receipt or completion in what we retained, so its outcome remains unknown.

Controls and software are reviewing attempt correlation across restarts, and quality has recorded the housing's separate disposition; Ravi, the first attempt is described only as request received, thanks for catching that word.

Will the revised reporting keep submission, receipt and completion as separate events? That would make future investigations easier even before considering clock differences.