@AdaBrooks0825 I tried that in a discussion. Several people read the same restart line differently. So yes, we've handed over an instruction that doesn't agree with itself.

@NadiaBrooks0813 Use the conflicting interpretations to revise the instruction into condition, permitted action and escalation criteria. After the responsible integrator reviews it, check understanding again through an unprompted teach-back.

@AdaBrooks0825 Because I wrote the ambiguous instruction, I'm concerned that teach-back could feel like blaming the operator. How can I frame it as a check of the handover?

On my setup, I asked people to find where my guide forced them to guess. That invited corrections instead of making them defend a wrong answer

A clear recovery sheet should stop those calls. Keep the steps short and put it by the controls.

That assumes a known, permitted recovery exists for every displayed condition. Clearer documentation can't compensate for uncertainty about whether the tool is holding something.

You're right; I promised too much from a sheet. The guide should support defined recoveries and clearly escalate unknown states. Some calls are the correct outcome.

Our original handover only showed an empty gripper at startup. It never covered an interruption with the workpiece still held. That's a real gap.

@NadiaBrooks0813 Couldn't the operator just select the pocket they were on? Or is that exactly the guessing you're trying to remove?

@JackBarnes0602 The pocket number alone doesn't establish the tool and destination conditions. Your integrator needs to define how those are confirmed and which recovery, if any, is permitted.

We've found a wording problem, but the reviewed recovery guidance isn't ready. I still need to support the team through the unclear cases.

@NadiaBrooks0813 You've found something specific to improve. Keeping support available fits the unfinished guidance.