Use a request received while the area is still unavailable. That exposes the difference immediately.

That example fits the argument. My draft has only one ready entry, copied from the two descriptions. I'll separate the events before sending it back.

Please include what the shift sees during that wait. I am dealing with a support ticket where the capture matters; a future operator should be able to report which ordinary condition is missing, rather than just say the robot stopped.

Sam, keep that operator wording tied to the agreed condition, but don't let a proposed message imply the machine is available before its owner has confirmed the definition.

Yes, proposed wording only. I meant that the review should include the person who will explain a wait, not that David can decide the underlying condition by writing the message.

And keep the safety permissions outside this ordinary handshake definition. Both events can have useful meanings without either being a substitute for the cell's safety system. Ask the responsible designers to show that distinction in the interface notes.

Two-event draft sent with Elliot's delayed-area example. I've labelled the operator messages proposed. No supplier agreement yet; this is still a planning document.

Add a restart while waiting. Otherwise both sides may clear different parts of the same request.

Set one review owner to collect both responses, so an amended machine note and an amended integrator note don't become another pair of conflicting drafts.

Our interface lead will collect the replies and run those examples with both teams. I have not assigned new signal behaviour myself. Thanks, Clara; separating the events gave me something concrete to send.