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。
LuisBarnes0608 · 2026年3月4日 06:20 UTC
Start with their real interruption examples. Separate an expected empty pocket from an unexplained absence, and an uncertain transfer from completed placement. Programmer and shift lead need to agree what can be decided from the available evidence.
11分We have examples of all three. The current screen calls each one check tray. No wonder the calls sound identical.
10分Our records once lost the first failure because the next stage looked successful, so keep the reason for uncertainty visible through recovery rather than clearing the message as soon as someone opens the review screen.
13分Offline walkthrough caught that exact screen behaviour. Review now retains the unresolved transfer and its reason. Shift lead owns first review, with maintenance and quality contacts named for the cases outside it.
7分Who covers the shift lead? Named escalation is only useful when the named person is actually available.
8分Deputy named and included in the next walkthrough. Thanks, Anna. I had replaced calls to me with calls to one equally absent person. Physical recovery checks still remain before this becomes the working handover.
11分Did the deputy complete that walkthrough and the agreed station checks without the programmer translating the new messages?
11分