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.

Rewrite that line around the visible condition, permitted next step and when to call for help. Have the responsible integrator check it, then repeat the teach-back without prompting.

How do I stop teach-back feeling like a test of the operator? The wording was mine. I don't want to make that their failure.

@CallumArcher0360 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.

Once the recovery sheet is clear and available at the controls, the team should no longer need to call you about these interruptions.

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.

@AlexBell0646 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.

@TheoChen1193 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.

@CallumArcher0360 I'm wondering whether selecting the current pocket would allow recovery. Does the held-workpiece case mean a pocket number alone can't explain what should happen?

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.

On my own cell, changing the index became folklore: ask the person who 'knows the trick'. Replacing that with a defined escalation made the uncertainty visible.

@KaiAdams0106 An operator also spotted that our screen and printed guide use different names for the same step. I wrote both. Lovely bit of self-sabotage.

Align the printed step names with the installed display and verify that any illustrations correspond to that version. This removes an avoidable translation task during recovery.

Terminology should be consistent in meaning as well as spelling. Verify that matching labels refer to the same physical condition wherever they appear.

How should the practice progress from understanding the conditions to using the machine? Would pictures or a discussion be a useful starting point before supervised equipment work?

Start with discussion or offline examples. Any equipment exercise should use a planned, supervised procedure; don't create surprise faults to see what someone does.

@TheoChen1193 The different interpretations have identified a concrete documentation issue. We haven't completed the reviewed guidance, so the operators still need support for conditions it doesn't explain clearly.

@CallumArcher0360 You've found something specific to improve. Keeping support available fits the unfinished guidance.