I have asked for the called routines and the permission definitions this time. We are planning an FR5 sleeve-blank handover, not repairing the teaching example I mentioned earlier.
The machine supplier has sent a definition. Its ready response acknowledges our request. Our integrator has written the same word beside permission to enter the loading area. Both have now read the other's page and still say there is no disagreement. How do I get this settled before it becomes a lesson somebody has to unlearn?
We inherited a screen where ready meant the previous job was accepted. The machine was still occupied. The operator caught it before anyone wrote the training notes, but it cost another handover visit.
Theo, the integrator says it will derive the loading permission from machine states. It has not listed those states yet. The machine supplier only owns the acknowledgement on its page.
Then I would put the missing state list in the integrator's work. Copying the acknowledgement into its drawing is easy. Explaining what happens when the request is received but loading is unavailable takes more effort.
The cell integrator owns that assessment, Theo. I have asked it to distinguish those conditions in the interface review too. The unavailable example is on the agenda.
Maintenance found the gap in the review. The request can be acknowledged while loading remains unavailable, and both suppliers have now said that explicitly. We have separate draft names. Permission conditions and loss-of-permission behaviour still need agreement.
Useful progress. Leave those last two items visibly unfinished in the teaching material; the clearer names will otherwise make the interface look more settled than it is.