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。
AlexAdams0124 · 2025年7月27日 21:45 UTC
Give each occurrence its own time, full message and step name. Keep the tray identity with it. Pick the one with the clearest matching trace, rather than combining the best-looking pieces from both. That would manufacture a third incident nobody observed.
13分First clip has no message. Second has the message and trace. I'll send the second as its own occurrence.
15分Include what happened just before that pause. Did the operator move the tray, change the job, or simply watch the next step wait? Sequence matters more than another minute of a stationary arm.
13分Tray replaced before that occurrence. Not claiming it caused the pause; maintenance is checking the located input.
23分Has the seller received that specific set, Alex? I'd ask them to answer against its incident time. Otherwise you may get a diagnosis based on the first clip while you're talking about the second.
10分Sent with a new occurrence heading under the existing ticket. Seller asked for the ordinary input state at the wait.
-2分Get maintenance to supply that from the matching capture. Also describe the tray's physical location in the photograph. A signal reading and a tray that looks seated from one angle still need interpreting together.
24分Input was low. Maintenance found debris at one locator during inspection. Repair and checks planned, no completed outcome yet.
12分Keep the first unexplained occurrence open too. This finding may explain the second one, but you said the first lacks the message. I'd rather leave that limit clear than claim the whole intermittent problem is solved.
21分Agreed. Two separate entries remain: first insufficient evidence, second under repair review. Thanks for stopping the cases merging.
13分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .