I have the timeout and restart in our housing report, but the reused job label appears on both sides of the restart. PLC, application and controller clocks disagree. The acknowledgement has no shared attempt identity, so I cannot tell which request it answered. What can the incident summary honestly preserve?
We once recovered useful local order from logs whose clocks could not be aligned reliably. Preserve the raw records, source sessions, event meanings and local sequence, then mark cross-source ordering as uncertain where there is no independent link.
Package author confirms receipt only, Omar. Our summary had called it inspection complete. Corrected that wording. No sequence reference common to the requests and acknowledgement has been found.
A better clock comparison may narrow timing, but it cannot recreate an attempt identity never recorded; give the authors that specific missing link for the future recorder rather than asking them only to synchronise clocks.
Housing remains held by quality, Yasmin. Authors are adding retained attempt identity and source session to the exchange and export, Chloe. Original receipt stays unassigned.
Test a delayed receipt after restart with the same displayed job label reused. Otherwise the recorder can look improved without exercising the ambiguity that brought you here.
Draft test separates receipt from result and uses distinct attempts with a reused label. The authors have not completed its replay yet. We have preserved the original local sequences without inventing a combined timeline.
I'd like to hear the recorder replay result when it is available, Jamie. The corrected incident account already prevents a false completion claim, even if this old receipt never gets an owner.