I put both suppliers' notes beside the FR10 lathe sequence and found the ready arrow means two different things. The machine side means it has received our request. The integrator means the loading area is available.
We're still planning this bush-handling job. I'd like the two authors to agree what actually happens rather than just settle on a friendlier word for the arrow.
They did that for the normal sequence. The machine can acknowledge receipt while preparation is still underway, so the original single arrow skips a real waiting stage.
Give that waiting stage a useful operator message too. Request received would tell me something different from area available, even though both suppliers currently seem happy with ready.
And if the request disappears during preparation, which side decides what remains in progress? Put that case on their drawing while both authors are present.
Anna, they are defining a separate unavailable outcome and its escalation. Nina, the lost-request case exposed another disagreement: one side assumed cancellation, the other continued preparing. That is now an explicit decision for the integration lead.
When those cases are agreed, let the covering person explain the draft messages without the authors filling the gaps. A diagram can be consistent and still leave someone wondering whether to wait or call.
Is there an attempt identity through preparation and its later availability response, Theo? A late response should not become the answer to the next bush request.
The draft now identifies requests and separates receipt, preparation and availability. Late and repeated responses stay linked to their request in the offline review. The lost-request decision is still open, with the integration lead named as owner.
Please include an ordinary preparation wait in that walkthrough. Every example need not be a fault; otherwise people learn to call as soon as nothing moves.