Found one. Different job selection from the video too. I've withdrawn that pairing.

Good. We once spent a whole review explaining a perfectly reasonable signal beside a photograph from another setup. The files had the same day in their names, so everyone assumed they belonged together. Make the occurrence link something the next shift can actually check.

Give the new occurrence its own identifier before the files leave the station.

Ask the author to name the preceding tray and destination conditions they need. Then your maintainer can check whether the recorder already retains them, instead of everybody taking longer videos.

And have the person who covers you try the export instructions. Otherwise you'll get the right evidence only when the one person who understands the folder happens to be standing there.

Author wants destination tray selection and its receipt before the wait. Recorder has both, with job identity.

Does the selection identify the physical tray revision, Amara?

Only the family. Two inserts share that family name.

Then retain the fitted insert identity separately; the family label cannot answer which one was there.

That may explain why support keeps asking about the tray. Can the maintainer identify the fitted insert in the captured occurrence, or is that part still uncertain?

Uncertain for the old stop. New capture identifies the insert and shows the full lead-in.

That is the one to send. Keep the old stop labelled uncertain, not quietly upgraded using what is fitted now.

Sent. Covering operator made the export without me. Thanks, Luca, that exposed a missing folder step.

Has the author tied the new wait to a specific condition yet?

Yes, destination receipt belongs to the other insert selection. Both authors are checking that mismatch; no revised job installed yet.