Which attempt owns this acknowledgement when the clocks disagree?

Restart marker is present. No request identity survives in the acknowledgement entry. Each source has its own order, but I cannot establish the order between sources.

Then leave the coupon unresolved while the responsible person reconciles it. Sorting those entries by displayed time would give you a tidy guess.

Who has the coupon now?

Chloe, agreed, but make unresolved visible outside the log folder. We once had an engineer carefully preserving uncertainty while the bench label still said passed. The person carrying the sample never saw the careful bit

Quality has it, Kai. Physical holder and application entry both say unresolved, Lin. They are deciding its disposition separately from our attempt to explain the old acknowledgement.

For the next software revision, retain an attempt identity before publishing the request and carry it through receipt, result and restart. Keep local ordering and clock information too, but do not make clock agreement the identity mechanism.

How will the maintainer distinguish a new attempt from recovery of the old one on the screen? That distinction should survive the export as well.

Developer's draft keeps each attempt under the coupon record. Recovery opens the existing unresolved attempt; starting another is a separate authorised action. The old unassigned acknowledgement remains unassigned.

That sounds readable. Try it with whoever covers the bench, though; I thought our old screen was obvious because I'd helped design it

Covering technician distinguished the cases. Controlled replay also keeps delayed and duplicate messages on their identified attempts after restart. Quality issued the coupon's actual disposition independently; we have not attached the ambiguous old acknowledgement to it.

Has the revised screen reached the bench yet?