简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
MayaAbbott0040 · 2025年8月22日 06:57 UTC
Put both definitions on the same page before that meeting. Ask each team what event causes its signal and what the other team may do after seeing it. Easier to discuss than whether ready is a good word.
8分Tables side by side now. Machine supplier confirms receipt does not mean access is available.
18分Then split receipt from availability in the proposed interface. Also ask what remains pending between them and who owns it. That waiting period is where a neat signal list usually runs out of explanation.
10分Our last class got further passing request cards across a table than staring at the interface spreadsheet; make one person delay the answer and see who thinks the job has vanished
13分We can do that before coding anything. No point debugging a disagreement faster.
14分Walkthrough found the request being cleared on receipt while the integrator still expected it during the wait. Both teams are revising ownership.
6分Which team tells the operator why it's waiting, Maya? Otherwise they'll get a green received lamp and no explanation of why nothing happens
11分Does the proposal distinguish ordinary availability reporting from the safety conditions for access? I would want the responsible reviewers to make that boundary explicit
16分Beth, integrator owns the operator display. Priya, safety reviewer has flagged that distinction; ordinary receipt cannot authorise access.
20分Try cancellation during the wait next. The teams need to know whether cancellation was merely requested or actually accepted, particularly if availability changes at the same time.
17分They found conflicting cancellation assumptions too. Draft now includes a pending-cancel state, with the unfinished handover still identified.
22分Give a tutor or shift lead those cards without the authors whispering the answers, because our beautiful first version only worked while I explained what each card secretly meant
17分Shift lead tried the draft. Asked who to call in the review state. No answer on the sheet yet.
2分Put the actual first contact there, plus what the operator must leave alone while waiting; named review state isn't a recovery instruction by itself
17分Will both suppliers review the operator wording too? It should describe the behaviour they have agreed, including what remains unresolved
4分And keep the crossing-response cases with the final interface document. Future changes need those examples, not only the tidy table you eventually agree.
10分Priya, both suppliers will review it. Beth, escalation wording is being added. Interface and safety approvals still outstanding; no finished handover claimed.
13分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .