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。
RobinCarter1034 · 2026年6月27日 14:32 UTC
Give the moments different names before choosing signal labels. Ask the machine side to describe receipt while the machine is still busy, then ask the integrator what it would wait for in that condition.
16分Agreement on ready is cheap. Agreement on what stays unavailable after receipt would be more useful.
14分Does either supplier define when its version of ready stops being true?
6分Machine side clears its receipt indication on a timer. Integrator assumes ready remains available until transfer begins. We've put those statements side by side; they describe different behaviour as well as different events.
13分That comparison should include the receiver's response to loss of the indication. Otherwise changing the producer's duration may simply conceal the mismatch during the normal sequence, while leaving the transfer decision undefined when the condition changes.
22分Who can establish the actual loading-area condition on the machine side?
9分And who explains the unresolved case to the covering operator? It shouldn't become ask Robin.
1分I'd walk a paper example through receipt, still busy, then unavailable again before transfer; cheaper than arguing over a signal abbreviation for another meeting.
14分Elliot, make the late receipt belong to its original request too. I've seen timeout discussions stop at failed, then a late answer quietly gets used for the next request because nobody specified the relationship.
6分Owen, the machine controls lead owns that condition definition. Harish, the cell lead owns the recovery explanation. Elliot and Hazel, we've added the busy and late-receipt examples, with request identity visible in the paper sequence.
15分Have they agreed conditions for the new availability event, or only its name?
20分Amara's question matters. Two named blanks would still leave the operator with the same puzzle.
15分Receipt has an agreed identity and clear rule now. Availability has a machine-side condition definition, but the integrator still wants a separate explanation of what happens if it is withdrawn while a transfer is being prepared.
23分That is a reasonable unresolved case. They need to distinguish preparation before transfer from a transfer already in progress, using the observations the design actually provides. Neither response should be inferred from the signal being called availability.
2分Keep both cases in the handover review. A normal-run screenshot won't explain either one.
18分Have the machine and integration leads agreed who owns that interrupted-state decision together?
22分Yes. They jointly own the open interrupted-state entry, and the cell lead will review the operator response with them. Receipt and normal availability are documented separately; I haven't marked the complete interface agreed.
19分At least the missing decision now has a name and owners; keep the awkward paper example with it so nobody closes the entry by demonstrating only the easy sequence.
20分