My machined-plastic-puck transfer completes uninterrupted runs, but a stop between pick, place and advance can leave the saved pocket inconsistent with the trays. What evidence should my recovery design require before it chooses the next action? This is still a workshop test station, not normal production.
My FR10 saved pocket cannot say where the puck stopped
CallumAbbott0012 · 2026年8月22日 01:21 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
11 条回复
Write down the source, hand and destination possibilities at each interruption boundary. Start with the saved information you actually have, not what you hoped each command accomplished.
16分And identify both trays; a pocket number means little after someone exchanges one.
12分Include stops after physical placement but before its durable record advances.
-1分That boundary is exactly where my current design would repeat the pocket. It saves only the next index. No source or destination tray identity, and no recorded uncertain state.
15分Then the old saved index cannot support automatic recovery. A revised record needs tray identity and action context, with an explicit hold when physical occupancy cannot be reconciled.
0分More fields will not make an unconfirmed placement confirmed
11分Agreed. Separate commanded actions from observations and from the authorised reconciliation decision.
5分My draft now has a held transfer with the two tray identities and relevant pockets. It does not decide placement succeeded from the release command. I still need to define who reconciles the physical state.
16分The offline review also found a tray swap that left a plausible pocket number. With an unrecognised destination tray, the revised draft holds the transfer rather than matching only the index.
20分Can the person reviewing the hold see which tray was expected and which is presently identified? That would help them report a mismatch without inviting them to choose a convenient tray name.
22分Test an unidentified tray too, not only a known wrong one
8分