简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
ChloeBell0657 · 2026年6月25日 17:16 UTC
Split them by meaning first. One acknowledges a request; the other expresses an agreed machine condition. Each needs an owner, prerequisites, receiver response and what ends it. Renaming alone will not tell either side what to do.
8分Can the machine acknowledge while it's still busy? That should end the word argument.
11分Yes, Henry. The supplier's example acknowledges during machining. I've shown that beside the integrator's current interpretation, and both accept they describe different events.
13分That example is worth retaining as a test case. What happens if the request is withdrawn after acknowledgement, before availability?
12分Hazel, would you make them include a new request after that withdrawal too?
23分Yes. The review should show how the old acknowledgement becomes invalid and how a fresh request is distinguished. Otherwise a normal sequence can look correct while the second attempt inherits yesterday's answer.
12分We've walked through busy receipt, withdrawal and a fresh request using the proposed table. The old acknowledgement cannot satisfy the new request in that version; the integration lead caught a missing clear condition during the walkthrough and corrected it.
14分Both suppliers have accepted the corrected interface definition, including separate availability conditions and interrupted-state ownership. That resolves my wording dispute. Implementation and the cell's validation remain ahead of us.
15分