Our UR5e housing-unloading ticket is 31 days old. I supplied the tray and job identities with the video, but the screen is out of frame. The operator calls every pause a stop, including tray exchanges. I need to distinguish the reported occurrences before asking support to diagnose them as one fault.
Have the job author identify the message at each reported occurrence, with the tray exchange context kept alongside it. I would not assume the same fault merely because the housing is stationary in every clip.
Our integrator matched the retained intervals. All three clips show the ordinary wait for confirmation after a receiving-tray exchange, not an alarm. The current operator view only says waiting, so that distinction wasn't visible to cover.
Then the ticket needs that finding stated against those three occurrences. It does not justify dismissing another stop which nobody has matched. Is the intended tray-exchange response actually in the handover?
No. The demonstrator supplied that part during training. Our sheet describes changing the tray but omits the agreed confirmation step. I mean the ordinary job confirmation, not a safety reset.
Ask the integrator and shift lead to put the visible condition and intended response together for cover. Don't just rename waiting to something the program author understands and assume the instruction is finished.
Also retain the reported occurrences as training findings rather than deleting them from the service history. Somebody may ask later why a month-long fault ticket closed without a replaced part.
Revised screen names receiving-tray confirmation. Integrator and shift lead checked the instruction against the installed job. The covering operator's exercise is arranged, with no demonstrator quietly completing that step.
Yes. Cover completed the normal exchange and its agreed confirmation, and recognised the wait in the interrupted example. We closed the three matched reports with support as an incomplete handover and unclear message. Different future occurrences will still get their own evidence.
That is a useful closure: named occurrences, an actual explanation and a checked handover change. No need to invent a hardware repair to make the ticket sound more substantial.