FR5 machine interface uses ready for receipt and availability

Both teams accept the separate names. Each still expects the other to clear receipt.

Walk one identified request through both programs before implementing anything.

Who owns the interface decision when the two teams disagree?

Integration lead. They've booked a joint review of the normal and unanswered request cases.

Include a late receipt after timeout in that review, so the teams must say what happens to the original request rather than attaching the reply to the next bush handover.

And restart while the exchange is unresolved. Clearing everything on startup could make the same request appear new, even with the improved labels.

Does the proposed request identity survive that restart?

Joint review found it did not. Author is changing persistence; ownership and clearing rules are now agreed on the table.

Names fixed, actual restart change still unfinished. Keep both facts in the handover draft

Draft does. Operator wording distinguishes waiting for receipt from waiting for process availability. Revised programs have not completed their joint checks.

Will the covering operator try those two waiting examples without either author explaining which is coming?