While documenting our planned interface for Fairino FR5 handling a turned spacer blank during documenting a machine-tending interface in a planned enclosed machining cell, I've found that the suppliers use 'ready' differently. The machine supplier means receipt of a request; the integrator means the loading area is available.
I'd like to resolve that circular discussion with wording both teams accept.
Two suppliers, two meanings of ready - documenting a machine-tending interface
AlexBrooks0820 · 2026年4月11日 16:06 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
15 条回复
@AlexBrooks0820 Can you put the two definitions beside each other, with the sender and receiving system named? Start with that single disputed transition.
18分@AnikaBennett0769 Both list a machine-to-robot signal. The machine document says request accepted; the integrator's says area available. They agree on the arrow and disagree on what happened.
10分Make separate rows for request received and resulting state confirmed, with an owner for each. That should clear up the normal handover on paper.
13分That table could still lose track of the part. Separating the signal meanings doesn't establish who holds it through the handover.
15分@LucaAllen0265 Fair correction. Those rows alone don't settle the handover. Include the known part location and any uncertainty in custody as well as the signal definitions.
5分@AnikaBennett0769 There's a single transfer box in our sequence, with no part-location detail. Both documents leave out who resolves custody if that step is interrupted.
8分We used a paper token for the part on a separate tending job. It seemed childish until the two suppliers placed it in different boxes.
7分Does the token need a box for unknown, then?
23分Yes, make uncertainty explicit. That state needs an owner for authorised recovery, not just a return arrow into the normal sequence.
21分Should recovery ownership live in the table or another document? I'd like something readable that doesn't bury the difficult part in an attachment.
6分@AlexBrooks0820 Name the responsible role in the table and reference the procedure there. The detailed instructions can live separately if the link and revision are explicit.
14分And don't let either supplier write 'other system' as the owner. That's the same disagreement wearing a slightly nicer shirt.
17分Unfortunately, that describes our notes fairly well. One assigns machine recovery; the machine document sends interrupted transfers back to the integrator.
19分The wording conflict is easier to present now. We still need the suppliers to settle the intended behaviour, so I'm keeping the interface in draft.
20分Clearer wording makes the disagreement easier to resolve, but the draft status still fits the missing behavioural agreement.
21分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .