UR5e sleeve transfer handover omits empty pockets and interruptions

FarahArcher0417 · 2026年6月22日 05:56 UTC

回复讨论

主帖中文翻译暂不可用,以下显示英文原文;回复保留原文。 查看英文原文

FA
FarahArcher0417
Operators start my saved job but need me for empty pockets or interruptions. I think I handed over buttons, not recovery decisions.

19 条回复

BE
BenAdams0109

That's plausible. Our blank waiting screen had operators calling maintenance because only the programmer knew what it meant. What does yours actually show when a pocket is empty?

22分
FA
FarahArcher0417

Pocket number and waiting. It doesn't say whether the job expects a sleeve or needs review.

24分
JA
JasperAbbott0029

I'd ask an operator what they think waiting means before rewriting it. Actually, ask them to explain the next decision too; your mental picture may fill in information that isn't on screen.

17分
TH
ThomasBell0625

Paper walkthrough first. Cheap way to discover which decision exists only in your head.

12分
CA
CalebAbbott0058

A handover needs the conditions for each permitted action, plus the point where the operator must stop and escalate. Do not turn an uncertain sleeve location into a universal restart instruction

8分
BE
BenAdams0109

Caleb, yes, but make escalation usable. Call the programmer is what Farah already has. If there's no cover when Farah is away, the nicer wording still leaves production waiting.

21分
CA
CalebAbbott0058

Agreed. Escalation needs a named role, available cover and the information that role needs. I was setting a boundary on the actions, not saying the present support arrangement is adequate

-2分
JA
JasperAbbott0029

Ben, did your team solve the waiting label itself or mainly improve the support route? I'm asking because those seem like separate jobs for Farah too.

10分
FA
FarahArcher0417

The operators read waiting as keep waiting. None thought it meant ask about the empty pocket.

6分
BE
BenAdams0109

Jasper, we made the stage visible; I haven't claimed that solved every recovery. Farah's observation says the current label isn't communicating the required decision at all.

13分
TH
ThomasBell0625

That isn't unwillingness. They've followed the one instruction the screen appears to give them.

21分
FA
FarahArcher0417

Agreed. I have removed the operator-confidence complaint from my handover note. The missing decision is mine to define with the cell lead.

3分
CA
CalebAbbott0058

Separate the known-empty-pocket case from an interrupted transfer where sleeve location is uncertain. They may reach different authorised decisions even if the old screen displayed waiting for both

25分
JA
JasperAbbott0029

Could the operators help choose the wording after those decisions are agreed? They already showed you where the old label sent them. That's better evidence than us guessing a friendlier word.

21分
BE
BenAdams0109

And test the handover without Farah prompting from beside the screen. A quiet hint from the author is still support work, however natural it feels during training.

23分
TH
ThomasBell0625

Count the hints. Otherwise a successful rehearsal can quietly borrow Farah for every awkward step.

1分
FA
FarahArcher0417

Cell lead has agreed the review route and cover role. We're drafting distinct states for empty pocket and uncertain transfer. No new recovery action released yet.

11分
FA
FarahArcher0417

In a paper rehearsal, operators distinguished the two draft states and identified the escalation role without my hints. Practical validation and the revised operating instructions are still pending.

6分
CA
CalebAbbott0058

That is evidence the decision wording is clearer in the rehearsal. Retain the practical validation and instruction approval as separate unfinished work; neither robot behaviour nor recovery safety was established by the paper exercise

24分

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 和 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。