My Fairino FR5 program picks a machined plastic puck, places it and advances the pocket during tray-to-fixture transfer in a small fixture loading area.
Clean runs work.
After a stop between actions, the saved pocket sometimes doesn't match reality.
We've 154 planned, and I want recovery sorted before normal production depends on it.
@RaviBell0650 Where does the index advance in your trace, relative to placement confirmation? Start with the sequence you've, not where the number ought to change.
It advances before placement confirmation. So after a stop, the number can describe the next intended pocket rather than a transfer we know finished. That's on my sequence.
Map the transfer stages offline, with an agreed completion confirmation.
Have your integrator define how saved state is reconciled with tool and pocket conditions; unknown conditions need an explicit recovery route.
@LouisCarter1007 You're right; saving stages alone doesn't guarantee recovery. The saved stage guides reconciliation, and the physical conditions still need confirmation before an approved next action.
My separate tray application could retain the same pocket value with the workpiece either held or placed. Explicit stage names helped us discuss those distinct conditions without relying on the index alone.
@RosaBell0640 It depends on what your installed sensing actually establishes. A closed indication isn't automatically proof of a held workpiece; document confirmed, empty and unknown conditions with your integrator.
@LucaAli0178 I've settled on explicit stages plus physical-state reconciliation for the redesign.
Any production use depends on integrator review and successful interruption checks; moving the index update alone isn't my fix.