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?
Why are we still calling two different FR5 handover states ready?
DavidChan1128 · 2025年11月23日 20:19 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
13 条回复
Put the two meanings on separate lines. Ask each team what changes the state and what the receiver may do with it, without using ready in the answer.
7分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.
12分Will, I have split the lines. Sofia, ours has no screen yet. I want to keep this wording out of it rather than correct it later.
25分Good. But has anyone actually said where the loading permission comes from? Two better labels still leave that job unassigned.
4分And don't make the eventual operator guess which team's version of ready the screen is showing.
22分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.
12分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.
14分Try that unavailable example in the joint review, David. It gives both teams something concrete to answer instead of another round of vocabulary.
5分Who is checking the safety-related permissions separately? I wouldn't let this ordinary request acknowledgement wander into that role by accident.
23分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.
15分Can maintenance explain the proposed states back to them at that review, rather than just watch both suppliers nod?
14分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.
8分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.
19分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .