Our UR5e inspection lesson says the batch is nearly finished. Except the counter is counting passed attempts, including repeats on plates already accepted.
We need unique accepted plates. Also need the failed attempts, because some plates had a reviewed retry and that history matters. I don't want to fix the cheerful number by deleting the awkward rows. Anyone got a clear way to explain this to the person changing the report?
Show them one plate with several attempts and ask for one current item decision alongside the whole attempt history; adding another attempt should not create another physical plate in the batch.
Made a tiny example. One failure, approved retry, pass, then the same pass delivered again after restart. Their query counts two passes. At least we can reproduce it without the robot now.
Give that replay the same attempt identity as its original result, or the example will accidentally describe a new inspection rather than a duplicate delivery.
Does a later failed check ever withdraw a plate's earlier acceptance? You need that rule too. Counting anything that has ever passed sounds simple until someone reviews an accepted plate again.
Have quality define the current item disposition, including a reopened review, before making the report infer it from whichever result has the latest timestamp.
Quality says reopened review removes it from accepted until a new disposition is authorised. Programmer now has separate item, attempt and received-message examples. The original failed check stays visible.
And keep that authorised disposition linked to its supporting attempt and review, so a trainer can explain why the plate counts without pretending its earlier failure disappeared.
We had exactly that argument over a smudged label. The report wasn't the place to resolve it. Put unmatched work somewhere visible for review, otherwise the nice total becomes an invitation to guess.
Unmatched records now stay outside the accepted item total with a review count beside it. No automatic match by time. Added a same-label-in-another-batch example as well, which exposed another shortcut.
Priya, yes, labels are scoped to the batch. Ben, full replay and incremental processing now agree across our saved cases, duplicates included. Quality checked the resulting item list against the batch records. Revised report accepted.