My stop video doesn't show what support needs

The arm holds the part above the tray. The application says waiting for inspection, and the controller screen has no visible fault message. I called it a robot fault in the ticket.

Describe it as a sequence waiting condition for now. No visible controller fault narrows the observation, but it doesn't establish the cause. Does the application show whether an inspection request was sent?

There's a request indicator lit. I can't tell whether that means it sent a request or simply entered the request step. The screen labels aren't explained anywhere.

That distinction belongs in the ticket. Ask for the indicator definition and the corresponding log entry. A light can show the program's intention without showing that another component received anything.

I've added the installed versions and corrected the fault description. The ticket now says the cause is unknown. The seller has asked for the application log around the wait.

Include the lead-in to that wait, not just the last line. If the system has separate logs, identify their sources and whether their clocks are aligned before combining them.

We spent ages chasing a stop that only followed a tray refill. What happened immediately before yours? Same part position each time, or just the same message?

Good distinction. A repeatable sequence state and a repeatable physical position are different clues. Both can be recorded without assuming either is the cause.

Existing examples are enough to start. I wouldn't manufacture more stops just to fill a comparison table. Ask which additional evidence the responsible engineer needs after reading the logs.

Two saved logs cover a success and a wait on the same tray. The stopped attempt follows a camera-service reconnect. That's an observation, not a diagnosis; I've sent both files.

That gives them a specific boundary to inspect. Have them explain how outstanding inspection requests are treated across a reconnect, including whether a response can be lost or attached to the wrong attempt.

And ask who owns that part of the software. 'We sent it to technical' isn't a handover plan. You need the person reviewing it to know which two logs you're talking about.

The seller named an application engineer and confirmed receipt of both logs. They are reviewing reconnect handling. No fix yet, but the ticket finally describes a testable problem.

Before accepting a fix, ask what changed and how they checked both the normal inspection sequence and the reconnect case. You'll need that explanation when someone else maintains this cell.