I've paired our sleeve-loading clip with its program step and receiving tray identity. Support now asks whether the tray was ready. The PLC author tells me the waiting message can cover two missing conditions, but the display names neither. I can ask for the trace; I am less sure what the operator should be told in the meantime.
Ask the author to name both conditions and what the current screen can actually establish. The operator shouldn't have to choose between hidden causes from a message that was written to cover both.
One condition is tray seated; the other is permission from the next station. The message just says waiting for tray. Our operator has been rechecking the seat every time.
That's wasted effort built into the wording. In our ticket the useful step was assigning the shift lead the matched occurrence and asking for the relevant confirmation history, instead of collecting more wide shots.
Who owns changing that message and the related handover instruction, Hazel? The support trace can explain one event without improving what the next operator sees.
Reece, agreed on getting the trace. I wouldn't assume the seat checks were pointless on every stop though. We still don't know which condition was missing on Hazel's captured occurrence.
Mia, our local integrator owns the PLC message and the handover page. They've accepted that the wording needs reviewing. The trace for our occurrence is with them, not interpreted yet.
Keep the interim instruction honest about that uncertainty. It can say the held job needs the named support person when the displayed information doesn't establish the next step, without teaching the operator to guess which input is missing.
They have a diagnostic view of both, but it shows current values only. The saved trace is what will tell us about the occurrence. I have made that distinction in the draft instruction.
When the integrator returns the explanation, ask them to walk the operator through that same example using the revised wording. That's where you'll find out whether it makes the two conditions understandable.