Machine author confirms receipt can occur while the loading area remains unavailable; integrator had treated that receipt as permission to advance the planned sequence.

Ask them to walk through exactly that waiting case together. It should be possible to show request received and area unavailable without somebody calling it a fault or clearing the request to get unstuck.

Agreed, and keep the required safeguarding separate from these ordinary handshake definitions. Renaming ready doesn't establish the conditions for access.

Jonas, who is writing the covering operator's view of that wait? Two technically distinct states can still end up under one unhelpful screen message.

Integrator owns the operator display, and both authors have agreed separate receipt and availability definitions with explicit clearing ownership.

The paper walkthrough now preserves a received request while availability is absent; restart during that wait remains unresolved, so the interface draft is not signed off.

That's the question to leave on the next review. Which state survives, how it is identified, and who reconciles it before the sequence resumes.