Can somebody who will maintain it join that walk? I'd want them trying to follow the job, not just watching the integrator click through something they already understand. That's a cheap way to discover which explanations never made it into the handover.

The integrator supplied an installed-revision pack and agreed to walk it with our maintainer; the screenshots are not yet tied to that revision, so I have kept them as background rather than current instructions.

Does the fitted coupon fixture match the assumptions in that pack, independently of the software revision?

And let the maintainer explain one ordinary wait without prompts. That exposes missing meanings quickly.

The fixture identity matches, but the written PLC list calls one ordinary input inspection complete while the routine waits on it before inspection starts; we found that discrepancy during the desk walkthrough.

Don't correct the label by guessing from the routine. Ask the PLC owner and integrator what actually produces the input and what event it represents, then compare that with the installed job. Could be documentation, could be a deeper mismatch.

Exactly, and keep the original line visible in the discrepancy list. Otherwise the person who learned from that sheet won't know why the replacement says something different.

Is that signal being described as process information only, separate from safety permissions?

And keep fixture identity confirmed separate from the signal question; one unresolved PLC description need not undo the independent fixture check.

Yes, ordinary process information only; the safety documentation is separate, and the confirmed fixture identity remains recorded while the two authors check the signal's actual meaning.

Ask for its source, set condition and clear condition, not just a better name. If the same bit remains asserted across jobs, a label change alone won't tell the maintainer what it means on the next coupon.

The PLC owner traced the installed input to fixture-present status, and the integrator confirmed that is what the pre-inspection wait expects; the complete label was copied from another line in the handover, not from the installed logic.

Useful, that is a documentation error with an identified source. Has the corrected list also been checked for the line it was copied from, or might the two descriptions have been swapped rather than just one duplicated?

Keep the inspection-result signal traced separately; fixture present does not establish that a coupon passed inspection.

And show the corrected meaning in the teaching notes, not only the maintenance pack.

Both lines have now been traced and corrected by their authors; the fixture-present and inspection-result meanings are distinct, with source and set/clear conditions recorded, and the teaching-note correction is included.

Have the maintainer read the corrected wait and result path back now, then leave any unanswered recovery conditions open. Resolving this copied label is real progress, but it doesn't complete every dependency the screenshots omitted.

Backup ownership belongs in that remaining list too. The right pack today is little help if nobody knows who updates it after the first approved change.

The maintainer could distinguish the wait from the result without prompts, and owns the versioned backup register now; interruption recovery still needs agreement, so the corrected signal documentation is closed but the full handover is not.