I inherited our FR5 spacer-loading ticket while the usual contact is away. It contains a wide video, a close-up of a message and a program export, all sent separately. The seller wants more detail.
I cannot tell whether those three attachments belong together. What can I ask the workshop to establish before I send a fourth item into the pile?
Start with the occurrence behind each attachment: event time, fixture identifier and program revision where available. I found two fixtures called A in our own captions. A tidy filename can conceal a very untidy comparison.
The workshop already found one mismatch. Program export is from before a tray changeover update. Video is later. We have not identified which version was running in the video.
Can the controls maintainer identify the installed revision at the time from their change history? If not, leave that occurrence incomplete and arrange a new capture with the setup identified.
They can identify the update date but not prove it was the loaded program for that clip. We are leaving the old video as background and requesting a complete new occurrence.
Our maintenance lead. I am coordinating the supplier messages, not diagnosing the station. The lead has the exact attachment list and has agreed to identify the next occurrence.
That division sounds workable. I would ask support to name the step or state they need, rather than making your maintenance lead guess what more detail means.
The new capture shows a wait for the outgoing tray position. No robot fault message. The old ticket subject just said robot stops, which I have narrowed now.
Send the station step and the ordinary tray-position input from the same occurrence. Then support can ask why that expected condition was absent. Do not change its timeout just to make the waiting message disappear.
Yes, each tray station is identified. Support has the matched step and input capture, and maintenance is checking the outgoing tray's locating arrangement.
It stayed absent during the captured wait, Hassan. Maintenance found the target out of position and is checking the intended arrangement before repair. The revised ticket pack replaces the old export for future correspondence.
I also sent the handover to our returning contact, Caleb. The unclear old occurrence remains labelled as such; we are not pretending the target finding explains every earlier pause.
Once that target is repaired, have the agreed checks cover the reported wait and the normal tray change. A target looking straight is not the complete station test.