No, and that was the first useful test; she opened a similarly named older copy from the shared folder.

Have the integrator identify the installed package first, including its called routines and associated configuration. Then walk through the inspection sequence with the deputy. You can add the ordinary signals beside the step that needs them rather than making another disconnected picture collection.

And distinguish the ordinary PLC conditions from safety functions. A maintenance reader needs to know what the application is waiting for without mistaking an application flag for permission to override a safeguard.

MinaAli, who keeps the old copy out of the teaching folder?

I moved the old copy to the labelled archive after the integrator identified the installed package; the tutor owns the current teaching folder, and the deputy now has the actual helper and configuration beside the main routine.

Does the insert in the document match the one at the station?

Yes, MinaChan, we checked its stamped reference together, and found a more interesting omission: the helper waits for inspection complete and a result belonging to the current sample, while the old caption just said result ready.

That distinction deserves an example. Use a result from the previous sample in the lesson and ask the reader why it cannot finish the current inspection. I mean a documented or offline example, not creating a fault at the station.

Dinesh, include the expected response to that mismatch as well. Otherwise the deputy can identify the wrong sample and still have no idea whom to call or where the investigation continues.

And let her answer before the integrator does.

We finished the walk-through with the deputy leading it; she found the stale result, the missing result and the mismatched insert from the examples, and followed each to its hold and named support contact without prompts, so this handover is finally usable.

Nice to hear the tooling example survived the software discussion.