I taught our Fairino FR10 job for tray transfer with a machined sleeve in a workshop tray handling cell. Everyone can start it, but an empty pocket or interrupted run means a call to me.
I don't think this is attitude. Our handover covered a clean run and left the awkward decisions out.
A teach-back could reveal where the handover becomes unclear. What do operators understand the restart instruction to mean when they explain it without prompts?
@ReeceBaker0471 I tried that in a discussion. Several people read the same restart line differently. So yes, we've handed over an instruction that doesn't agree with itself.
Rewrite that line around the visible condition, permitted next step and when to call for help. Have the responsible integrator check it, then repeat the teach-back without prompting
@ReeceBaker0471 Not if the system can't tell them what's physically happening. Better wording can't create a recovery path for an unknown held-workpiece state.
You're right; I promised too much from a sheet. The guide should support defined recoveries and clearly escalate unknown states. Some calls are the correct outcome
@AnilChan1071 I'm wondering whether selecting the current pocket would allow recovery. Does the held-workpiece case mean a pocket number alone can't explain what should happen?
The pocket number alone doesn't establish the tool and destination conditions. Your integrator needs to define how those are confirmed and which recovery, if any, is permitted
@ReeceBaker0471 My setup had developed an informal habit of consulting whoever knew how to edit the index. A defined escalation route helped us identify uncertainty that the workaround had concealed