Which receiver condition should accompany our FR10 spacer stop?

Receiver not available. Our integrator says that message covers more than one condition, so I have asked for the actual installed branch behind it.

Then ask support and the integrator to name the required history together. You should not have to guess which of those conditions their next email means.

They identified receiver latch confirmation. The retained trace shows it dropping before the wait. Our phone view cannot show whether the latch is properly engaged.

Give maintenance the latch assembly identity with that interval. A tray looking seated from above is not much help with the engagement underneath.

Callum, yes, and let the job author explain the response too; a real loss of confirmation may be exactly why the job waits, rather than the program needing a way around it.

Does the covering operator know to call maintenance for that condition?

Oliver, did maintenance find anything in the latch? Or is the captured change still unexplained?

Excessive play in the latch assembly, confirmed against its service information. Maintenance has arranged the specified repair. Elena Baker, cover knows the hold-and-call route; the screen wording is being made more specific.

Worth keeping the removed assembly identified until the repair check is done. The next shift should not find it in the usable-spares box.

And include the ordinary tray exchange in that check, Oliver, because a receiver left untouched for the entire demonstration does not tell your covering operator much about the next changeover.

Has the repaired latch been tried with the trays that gave the recorded stops? I mean the identified trays, not merely another tray of the same colour.

Maintenance and the integrator completed the agreed return check with those trays and normal exchanges. Latch confirmation remained stable. The installed message now names that wait, and cover followed the revised response in the handover exercise. We closed the captured fault with support.

Useful outcome. Is the more specific message also in the operator's printed fault list?