Our UR5e housing stop clip leaves the operator message out

Our integrator matched the retained intervals. All three clips show the ordinary wait for confirmation after a receiving-tray exchange, not an alarm. The current operator view only says waiting, so that distinction wasn't visible to cover.

Then the ticket needs that finding stated against those three occurrences. It does not justify dismissing another stop which nobody has matched. Is the intended tray-exchange response actually in the handover?

No. The demonstrator supplied that part during training. Our sheet describes changing the tray but omits the agreed confirmation step. I mean the ordinary job confirmation, not a safety reset.

Ask the integrator and shift lead to put the visible condition and intended response together for cover. Don't just rename waiting to something the program author understands and assume the instruction is finished.

Also retain the reported occurrences as training findings rather than deleting them from the service history. Somebody may ask later why a month-long fault ticket closed without a replaced part.

Revised screen names receiving-tray confirmation. Integrator and shift lead checked the instruction against the installed job. The covering operator's exercise is arranged, with no demonstrator quietly completing that step.

Did cover recognise why the wait remained after changing the tray, without being told where to look?

Yes. Cover completed the normal exchange and its agreed confirmation, and recognised the wait in the interrupted example. We closed the three matched reports with support as an incomplete handover and unclear message. Different future occurrences will still get their own evidence.

That is a useful closure: named occurrences, an actual explanation and a checked handover change. No need to invent a hardware repair to make the ticket sound more substantial.