I am reconstructing an FR5 sample-verification timeout. Python, PLC and controller clocks disagree, and the application reused its job label after restart. One acknowledgement could belong to either attempt. What surviving identity would justify assigning it, rather than choosing the nearest timestamp?
Is there a persistent attempt reference carried in both the request and acknowledgement, separate from the reused display label? Without that or other evidence linking this event to one attempt, clock alignment alone may still leave the ambiguity intact.
No persistent attempt reference is present in these records. I have retained the acknowledgement as unassigned and listed the competing attempts. The timeout does not prove the inspection failed to execute, so I am not treating either attempt as safe to resubmit.