I've stopped using the UR5e progress bar for the department update. It jumped towards finished after we reopened the application, but the extra entries are reviewed retries of coupons already on the list. Nobody has secretly manufactured more coupons while I was getting coffee.
We do have physical item identities and separate disposition records. Some coupons are accepted, some rejected, some still awaiting a decision. I want those distinctions on the report, with all the attempts still available underneath. Has anyone made that understandable to the person planning the next batch without filling the page with three competing totals?
Give the accepted quantity the clear headline, then show held and rejected nearby with their names rather than making the reader subtract them; the attempt workload can sit separately for the person planning inspection time.
Yes. It's the summary that counts attempt rows. The links survived, so we don't need to rebuild them from tray positions or guess which retry was which.
Start with a small set you can explain all the way through: one accepted first time, one accepted after a reviewed retry, one held and one rejected. Compare the report's item list with their authorised dispositions, not just a total that happens to match.
Then reopen it and deliver the same result again. The display needs to stay understandable through those cases, and none should create another physical coupon. I'd also include a later authorised disposition change before anyone calls the revised count finished.
Jasper's small set would be useful for a reader check too; ask the planner which coupons are available and which still need a decision, without coaching them through the headings.
We tried the proposed layout with the planner. They understood accepted and rejected but thought held meant material physically held in the gripper. Fair enough, in a robot report. We're changing that heading to awaiting review.
Yes, screen and export share the labels. The count tests pass for retries, repeated delivery and restart. Later disposition changes are still being tested; the proposed page hasn't replaced the current report.
Who owns correcting the already-circulated batch update? I would keep a short explanation of the old count with it, so people don't read the lower accepted quantity as coupons newly failing inspection.
I do, with quality confirming the item list. Thanks Rebecca for the layout suggestion; the planner could read it, and the misunderstanding about held was much cheaper to find on paper.