处理现场技术问题Handling an On-site Technical Issue

Jack, I have paused the validation run and switched the station to observation mode. Production can continue, but the AI result is not controlling any action.

Good containment. Please give me the exact symptom and the last time the station ran normally.

After lunch, correct operations began receiving occasional NG prompts. The morning run was normal. No model or workflow version changed between the two runs.

Have you compared the configuration checksum and camera status, rather than relying only on the deployment record?

Yes. The approved versions and camera settings match. However, the image histogram is brighter than the morning reference.

That points us towards the physical environment. Check the lamp position, any new reflective object and whether the camera bracket has moved.

The camera bracket marks are aligned. A cleaning trolley was removed, and the task lamp is below its marked angle.

Return only the lamp to its approved mark, take a reference frame and run the controlled sample set. Keep the exposure settings unchanged.

The left-edge glare has disappeared. All approved normal samples now produce the expected vision state.

We have reproduced and corrected the image symptom. Save the before-and-after frames and record the lamp position as the verified cause for that symptom.

During the repeat run, I noticed one workflow timeout even though the image result was correct.

That should be tracked separately. What are the capture, inference-complete and client-receipt timestamps for that event?

Capture and inference timing are within the normal range. The delay appears between the edge unit sending the result and the client receiving it.

Check the local link status and packet-loss counter for that period. Please do not restart the switch yet, because that would remove useful evidence.

The edge link stayed up, and its packet-loss counter did not increase. The client host shows a short scheduling delay at the same time, so the current evidence does not prove a network fault.

Then the network hypothesis is weaker than we first thought. Keep it unconfirmed, and ask the system owner to compare host load, message-queue timing and security events before we change any timeout.

Should I increase the timeout now?

Not during production and not without reviewing the process limit. Keep observation mode active, preserve the logs and schedule a controlled network test with the network owner.

I will document two separate incidents: lighting position corrected, and intermittent result delivery under investigation.

Exactly. Add the temporary operating mode, owners, evidence links and next review time. That gives the team a truthful status without mixing the two causes.

The system owner has joined the call. The client host was running a scheduled security scan at the time of the delayed result. Could that explain the scheduling delay?

It is a plausible hypothesis, but timing overlap alone is not proof. We should compare processor load, storage activity, message-queue latency and several unaffected events from the same scan period.

The host log shows a short processor peak. Most events still arrived within the workflow limit, while one message waited longer in the client queue.

That narrows the location of the delay, but we still need a controlled reproduction. Ask the system owner whether the scan can be run in an approved test window while we replay a non-production event sequence.

The test window is available after the current shift. We can use the simulator, so no real station command will be issued.

Good. Record the host baseline first, run the event sequence without the scan, then repeat it with the approved scan. Keep the workflow version, queue settings and simulator input unchanged.

If the delay appears again, can we call the scan the root cause?

Only if the behaviour is repeatable, the comparison shows the queue delay, and alternative causes are reasonably ruled out. We should also confirm whether the host resource policy meets the deployment requirement.

Would increasing the workflow timeout be an acceptable containment measure?

Possibly, but only after the process owner confirms the maximum useful response time. A larger timeout might hide a performance problem or allow the operator to move ahead before the prompt arrives.

For the next production period, we will keep observation mode and prevent the security scan from overlapping with validation, subject to IT approval.

That is a reasonable temporary plan. Make it time-limited and record that it reduces exposure but does not yet prove the technical cause. The controlled test still needs to be completed.

Should we add monitoring so that a similar delay is easier to diagnose next time?

Yes. We should retain bounded metrics for inference time, transport time, client queue time and workflow evaluation time, with clock synchronisation checked. That makes each stage visible without retaining unnecessary production content.

I will update the incident record with the confirmed lighting cause, the unconfirmed host-load hypothesis, the containment plan and the approved test procedure.

Please also record the recovery criteria: stable images, repeatable message timing within the approved limit, completed log review and joint approval to leave observation mode. Then the closure decision will be evidence-based.

Understood. Until those criteria are met, the status will remain partially recovered rather than resolved. I will brief the next shift on the operating mode and escalation route.

That wording is accurate. It protects production, preserves the distinction between the two symptoms and gives the next team a clear testable route to full recovery.