The value means next pocket after advance; it says nothing about whether the preceding placement completed.

Then don't rename it completed pocket. Keep its actual meaning and add the missing transfer state explicitly. Who decides an uncertain placement on the shift when you are absent?

Jo, adding a state helps describe the uncertainty, but it doesn't give the shift a permitted recovery action. The cell owner and responsible designers need to define that, including when the operator stops and calls maintenance.

Agreed. I'd use an offline table of interruptions to find the missing decisions before touching the live routine: before pick, after pick, after release is commanded, after placement is established, and around saving the advance. Some rows should say cannot establish, escalate. That's useful information, not an incomplete table you should force into a green state.

That exposed a hole after release command: my draft assumed the destination contained the puck without any confirmation.

Retain that row as uncertain. If the restart screen offers continue there, a user may reasonably believe the system has checked the placement when it has not.

Also try replacement of the tray while stopped. Even a correctly saved number belongs to a particular tray arrangement, not every tray subsequently put in the station.

Added tray replacement. The draft now holds both cases for the agreed physical-state check; that check is not defined yet.

Who is defining it, Sara? I would bring the people who perform the approved access and recovery work into the review, not just whoever can change the program. They need a usable boundary and an escalation route.

Cell owner, maintenance and integrator are reviewing it together; operators are checking whether the proposed prompts mean what we intend.

When the draft returns, test restart during recovery as well. Otherwise you can fix interruption of production and leave a second, less documented interrupted sequence inside the recovery procedure.

The review has defined who confirms source, tool and destination state under our approved access procedure. Offline checks now hold ambiguous cases instead of advancing, including interruption during recovery. Live return-to-service testing is still outstanding.

Has the shift accepted the wording for those held cases? An accurate internal state can still be misunderstood if the prompt sounds like permission to resume normal movement.

They changed one prompt from ready to resume to state review required. That correction is in the draft; production remains held pending validation.