Enjoyed the supervised FR5 puck-transfer trial. My write-up makes it sound as though I prepared the job, which I did not. How much of the demonstrator's help should I spell out?
I would describe the handover point. What was ready when you took over? Then say which actions were yours and which needed help. That is more useful to me than a general word like supervised.
Fixture mounted, pucks laid out, job loaded. I followed the sequence and used the displayed controls. The demonstrator talked me through a stopped transfer; I did not diagnose it
That gives me a clear boundary. I would still like to know what you enjoyed. Was it the controls, the explanation, or seeing the transfer work? Preparation by somebody else does not erase your experience.
The prompts were easy to follow, and I could see what stage I was at. Or rather, I could during normal transfers. At the stop, the explanation came from the demonstrator
Keep that distinction in the review. I would not infer independent recovery from clear normal prompts. Readers considering training need both parts of your account.
Edited. Named the prepared fixture and loaded job, kept my positive view of the prompts, and described the guided stop. Thanks Mina; the handover point made this much easier to explain
That answers what I wanted to know. Your first impression can remain positive without making the preparation disappear. I would read that as a trial account, not a promise about my own setup time.