Our FR10 lathe diagram calls receipt and loading availability ready

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.

What happens if preparation cannot finish? That stage needs more than the assumption that availability eventually arrives.

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.

Anna's late-response case belongs with clearing too. Don't let agreed normal become agreed interface on the cover page.

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.

Have the messages reached the covering-person walkthrough yet, or are they still only the authors' proposed wording?

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.