Request received. No inspection result implied. Python records its restart, but the exported PLC rows only show the reused job label and acknowledgement state.

Do the PLC rows show an actual transition or repeated samples of a retained high state? That distinction may help reconstruct ordering, though it would not supply a missing attempt identity.

Yasmin, did that force you to abandon the reconstruction, or could you recover the originals?

Amy, repeated high samples in the interval we have. It starts too late to show the rising transition. I have preserved the original files and made any alignment notes separately.

We recovered an earlier attachment from the service ticket, Robin. That let us audit the adjustment, not prove the adjustment was correct. The distinction was rather important to the final report.

That is a useful reminder to look for earlier exports, Ella. Another capture might contain the transition, but do not describe it as available until someone actually finds it.

Who owns the physical housing's disposition while the event remains unassigned?

Quality has the housing held. We have asked the controls owner for an earlier export and the application maintainer for any session detail. Neither has found a distinguishing identifier yet.

I would write down the two candidate histories now, with the facts that support and limit each. That makes a remaining ambiguity easier to review than a single confident timeline with a small question mark buried inside it.

And don't promote nearest timestamp into most likely merely because it is easy to sort. Clock offset, delayed delivery and reused labels are all still in play here.

Can the controller event list distinguish the two request receptions even if the application label repeats? I would ask that explicitly rather than assume every useful identifier must be in the Python file.

Future exports need attempt identity across restart. That won't decide this old acknowledgement, though.

Controller records don't distinguish the receptions in the surviving export. No earlier capture found. I've kept both candidate histories with the receipt acknowledgement unassigned, and removed a draft sentence saying the later inspection completed.

Thanks for removing that sentence. It had outrun even a successful identity match, since you've established the acknowledgement means receipt rather than an inspection result.

Quality is handling the physical housing separately. The software team is planning persistent attempt references, but this incident remains unresolved from the available logs. I won't describe the future change as recovered history.

That is a defensible endpoint for the incident note. Keep the missing evidence named, so the next person doesn't spend another afternoon shifting clocks to rediscover the same limit.