Why does every empty tray pocket still need me?

Hana, yes, but don't turn it into an exam where the learner has to guess the tutor's favourite answer; I would start by admitting the screen or instructions might be rubbish.

Louis, it says waiting at source. No pocket shown. Imran, guilty on the screen: I know which step it means because I wrote it. The operators have been telling me that in rather polite ways.

Imran, I meant learning from their explanation, not marking it. One operator spotted that our instructions used a different name from the display. That was our mistake.

I'd start with that empty-pocket example and an offline screenshot, Elliot, because you can find out what information is missing without interrupting another production run.

And who is authorised to decide whether that pocket is skipped or the tray needs checking?

Louis has the awkward bit there, a clearer screen still won't decide what an operator is allowed to do when the physical tray and the saved progress disagree.

Thanks Farah, the screenshot exercise was useful. They wanted the tray and pocket identity, but also wanted to know whether waiting meant safe to leave the job unattended. I hadn't expected that question. We need clearer status wording as well as the recovery decisions; I've brought the cell owner into it.

That's worth keeping in their words for the review; waiting can sound quite harmless when the system is actually asking for somebody's attention.

We also had an operator who understood the fault but did not know who covered it on the late shift. The contact route belongs beside the recovery decision.

Hana, did you name a person or a role, because a name on an old sheet can be another dead end?

Role, with the current shift contact shown separately. Naming only the original programmer was what we were trying to get away from.

I'd like to hear how the second walkthrough goes, Elliot; the first one has already found more than another immaculate tray demonstration would have.