Both sides accept that receipt can happen while the lathe is occupied. The machine supplier proposes a separate availability indication. We haven't agreed how long either indication remains valid.

Does the receipt belong to an identified request? I'm trying to picture what happens if the requester restarts while the machine retains it.

Lin, that belongs in the agreement. Retaining a signal is not the same as retaining enough context to use it. Carla's teams should describe restart on either side, not assume both restart together.

Thank you, Liam. The separate restarts were the bit I hadn't pictured. A table with both sides initially empty would miss that.

We added separate restart cases. The machine keeps a request context that the integration proposal currently loses, so the mismatch is more than naming. Both leads are revising the recovery entry together.

Useful finding. Keep that inconsistent starting condition in their test plan after they revise the interface; a clean-start demonstration will not show whether they fixed it.

Normal receipt and availability are agreed now. Restart reconciliation is still outstanding, with the retained-machine-context case explicitly attached. I won't label the whole interface agreed on the strength of the normal sequence.