Why are both UR5e interface authors defending different meanings of ready?

OscarAdams0097 · 19 Nov 2025, 04:51 UTC

Closed
OS
OscarAdams0097
Our lathe-loading meeting keeps returning to the same word: the machine supplier uses ready for request received, while the integrator uses it for loading-area availability; I want separate ordinary job events agreed before anybody presents this as one settled sequence, with the safety functions remaining a separate engineered matter.

5 replies

HE
HenryChen1134
Replying to OscarAdams0097

Can each author describe the event without using ready at all?

13 points
OS
OscarAdams0097
Replying to HenryChen1134

They can: one acknowledges the identified request and the other reports the agreed process conditions for the loading step, so I have put those as separate events in the draft instead of negotiating a shared adjective.

20 points
HE
HenryChen1134
Replying to OscarAdams0097

Who clears each event, and what happens if the request remains unanswered?

4 points
OS
OscarAdams0097
Replying to HenryChen1134

Ownership is now agreed for the ordinary sequence, but unanswered requests and loss of communication still have open decisions; the operator walkthrough will include both rather than ending after the successful exchange.

13 points
HE
HenryChen1134
Replying to OscarAdams0097

Will the planning summary show those gaps as clearly as the agreed normal sequence?

13 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .