The visible label is all I found in the application export. There are two startup records. I have kept the originals, not corrected their clocks in place.

Check whether the export dropped a field that remains in the underlying saved record. We often investigate the convenient report rather than the data that produced it. That is a question for your developer, not a reason to assign the acknowledgement yet.

Exactly. Sorting timestamps cannot turn received into finished.

The interface definition says request accepted for processing. I had called it completion in my incident draft. That wording is now corrected. The developer is checking the saved records for an attempt reference.

That correction matters even if the old attribution stays unresolved. I would draw two separate chains, with the acknowledgement unattached between them. Put possible links in a different style from established ones; otherwise a working hypothesis soon becomes the official sequence

Bruno, I'd be wary of a dotted arrow too, people remember the arrow and forget the dots.

We keep an unassigned-events section beside the attempt table. No arrow to remove later. Each entry still links to the original source and has an owner for the next question

Can the saved startup records establish which application session produced each request, even if they cannot yet identify the acknowledgement?

They separate the two sends by application session, Sam. The export hid that field. The acknowledgement record has no matching session or request reference, so the sends are clearer but its attribution is not.

Keep the plate visibly awaiting disposition while that evidence is incomplete. The operator needs to know who can decide the next action; a more accurate incident table should not leave them with an apparently idle job they can simply start again.

Leah Baker, has quality taken ownership of that plate, separate from the developer's reconstruction?

Yes. Quality has the identified plate held for review. Our cell lead owns any further authorised action. Sarah, I used the separate unassigned-events section. It reads much more honestly than my tentative arrow.

Does any record show actual inspection completion for either attempt? We have established what the acknowledgement is not, but I would not let that consume the search for the result itself.

Victor, agreed. Search the retained result source under both session contexts, including unsuccessful outcomes. A missing accepted-item row is not the same as no execution, especially when the application restarted during recording.

Did that search produce anything usable, Leah?

No retained completion result can be tied to either attempt. Quality is arranging a separate verification under the cell lead's procedure. The incident report now says two sent requests, one unassigned receipt acknowledgement, and no attributable inspection outcome.

That is a defensible unknown. Do not name the verification as recovery of the lost result.

For future records, carry a persistent attempt identity through the request and response and preserve the application session too. Clock-offset evidence will still help correlate sources, but it should not be asked to supply identity that the messages omit