Yes. Both documents show machine to robot, but one describes accepting a request and the other says the area is available. Same arrow, different event

@DavidBarnes0606 Make separate rows for request received and resulting state confirmed, with an owner for each. That should clear up the normal handover on paper.

@ChloeBrooks0831 That table could still lose track of the part. Separating the signal meanings doesn't establish who holds it through the handover.

You're right; I overstated what those rows settle. Add known part location and the point where custody becomes uncertain. Signal definitions are only the start.

The sequence drawing has a transfer box but no custody note inside it. Neither document says who reconciles that state after an interruption

On another tending project, we moved a paper part token between boxes. It felt silly until both teams put it in different places.

Does the token need a box for unknown, then?

@JoAli0244 Yes. Unknown is a legitimate state to document. Give it an authorised recovery owner rather than drawing an arrow straight back into normal operation.

Would you put recovery ownership in this table or a separate procedure? I'm trying to keep it readable without hiding the awkward bit again

Name the responsible role in the table and reference the procedure there. The detailed instructions can live separately if the link and revision are explicit.

Check they name an actual responsible role. 'Other system' would just put the original disagreement into a tidier document.