During a discussion, I asked operators to explain the restart wording and received several different interpretations. That gives us a concrete ambiguity in the handover to address

Rewrite that line around the visible condition, permitted next step and when to call for help. Have the responsible integrator check it, then repeat the teach-back without prompting.

How do I stop teach-back feeling like a test of the operator? The wording was mine. I don't want to make that their failure

On my setup, I asked people to find where my guide forced them to guess. That invited corrections instead of making them defend a wrong answer

A clear recovery sheet should stop those calls. Keep the steps short and put it by the controls.

Not if the system can't tell them what's physically happening. Better wording can't create a recovery path for an unknown held-workpiece state.

@AnilBarnes0549 You're right; i promised too much from a sheet. The guide should support defined recoveries and clearly escalate unknown states. Some calls are the correct outcome.

@JackBarnes0602 Our original handover only showed an empty gripper at startup. It never covered an interruption with the workpiece still held. That's a real gap

I've settled how to revise the handover: visible condition, permitted action and a clear help route, checked by the integrator. I'll only treat it as ready after the teach-back supports it

@PriyaChen1177 That gives the revision a useful acceptance condition. Understanding the permitted action matters more than simply distributing a new sheet.