Which FR5 attempt owns the acknowledgement after our laptop restarted?

Aaron, PLC has a request counter. Dinesh, Python has a startup line between the two uses of the label. Its summary file drops the counter, but I haven't checked the raw received messages yet.

Please check the raw messages before fixing the clocks. We spent ages arguing about a one-hour offset in an exercise, then found the useful identifier sitting in a field the summary never printed.

It's held by quality, Callum. No automatic repeat. Mei, thanks for the raw-message nudge: the acknowledgement includes the earlier counter, not the counter allocated after startup.

Does the capture show the earlier counter on the outgoing request as well? I'd want both ends of that link before closing the attribution.

And keep the later timeout attached to the later attempt. Finding an earlier acknowledgement won't settle the newer attempt's outcome by itself.

Dinesh, yes. Two attempts with different questions, unfortunately. Still better than forcing them into one miraculous late success.

Outgoing request and returned acknowledgement carry the earlier counter. The later request has a different one. I've split the report into those two attempts. Newer result still unknown.

Did quality accept that split, and do they have a way to decide what happens to the held housing without waiting for perfect clock alignment?

I'd still investigate the clocks for future troubleshooting, but don't adjust the old originals. Add a separate explanation of the differences and how the counter established this link.

Aaron, do you mean measure the current clock difference and use that on the old files? That seems risky after a restart or time correction.

No, current offset alone would be a poor basis. I meant investigate their configuration and any recorded changes. The old correlation should stand on the captured identifiers we actually have.

The summary dropping the counter is worth fixing independently. A future maintainer should not need the same scavenger hunt to see that the attempts differ.

Quality has accepted the two-attempt description and owns the housing decision. We added the counter and application-run identifier to the summary. The original timeout hasn't magically gained a result.

Does the new summary say unknown clearly? I'd avoid pending if people read that as work which definitely hasn't started.

That wording matters to planning too. Pending often ends up on someone's list of things to run again, even when the technical note below it says something more cautious.

Changed to outcome unknown for that case. Pending now isn't the label for everything we failed to save. Thanks, Mei; that was an awkward ambiguity we were about to keep.

Make sure it is more than a wording change. If startup still selects all missing-result entries for resubmission, a clearer report will not stop another uncertain attempt.