Two meanings of ready in our UR5e sleeve handover

The lathe supplier says yes. The integrator says it would wait for other machine states, but those states aren't listed in its interface page.

Then the page is missing the permission conditions, not merely a better word.

Who supplies those other states and defines when they are valid? The two teams need that agreed before the integrator can describe the loading permission meaningfully.

We had two owners defend the same word because each was thinking about a different end of the exchange. A paper walk-through of received-but-unavailable got a better answer than another edited glossary.

Amara, the lathe supplier supplies the ordinary states and the integrator combines them. Both are now listing the conditions together, with the received-but-unavailable example on the review.

Has the safety-related permission assessment been distinguished from that ordinary acknowledgement as well? I don't know your cell design, but the same casual ready label shouldn't blur that boundary.

Yes, the integrator owns that assessment separately and has marked the distinction in the review. The ordinary sequence is still a draft, not tested behaviour.

Did the joint walk-through settle what the operator sees while the request is acknowledged but loading remains unavailable?

It produced separate proposed messages for request received and waiting for loading permission. The operator asked who gets called if it stays waiting; that ownership is not agreed yet.

Keep that question beside the draft, Owen. It's exactly the sort of thing that gets dropped when the two suppliers finally agree their own signals and declare the human part obvious.

And what happens if either side restarts while waiting?