Robot Maintenance Cases: Record Inspection and Repair Approval Separately

A robot maintenance case can move from an initial inspection to a proposed repair, a parts order and a return to service. Each stage needs a clear record of what was requested and approved. A service team should not treat an inspection request as automatic approval for every possible repair or represent an estimate as a completed action.

Define the initial inspection request

Record the equipment identity, reported observation, site contact and the scope the customer has actually requested. State whether the provider is being asked to review documents, inspect a removed component or assess a complete installation. If the request has limits, include them; where the scope is unclear, ask the customer before representing it as agreed.

The site’s article on a no-fault-found service record explains why an inconclusive result still needs evidence. This article addresses a different question: how an inspection may lead to a proposed change in work and how that change should be documented.

Use the manufacturer’s scope for the actual equipment

The Robotiq Hand-E manual contains model-specific maintenance, spare-parts and troubleshooting information. It illustrates why the service team should identify the exact product and relevant manual before discussing work. The manual does not define the authorised repair scope for a different manufacturer’s robot or every third-party attachment.

Record the model, relevant document version, identified component and the provider’s explanation of the proposed work. If a manufacturer or authorised provider must be consulted, list that as a follow-up. Physical handling and maintenance should be performed only by appropriate personnel under the equipment and site safety procedures.

Distinguish observation from proposal

A technician’s observation might be “a visible part is worn” or “a reported issue was not reproduced during the agreed test.” A proposed action might be to request a replacement part or conduct a further inspection. Record these as separate items, including what evidence supports the proposal and what remains unknown.

Imagine a hypothetical service case in which the initial inspection identifies a damaged external accessory, but the customer’s original complaint concerns intermittent software behaviour. The provider can report the visible condition and separately explain whether additional work is recommended. It should not claim that the accessory caused the software issue without evidence. This is an illustrative scenario, not a report of a real failure.

Make the approval record specific

For a proposed change in scope, identify the work, affected equipment, responsible provider, expected deliverables and any conditions that need confirmation. Keep the estimate or proposal separate from the customer’s actual response. If the customer asks a question or requests a revision, record that status rather than marking the work approved.

Commercial terms and legal rights depend on the agreement and applicable law. This checklist does not decide whether a charge is valid or whether a warranty applies. Both parties should use the actual written agreement and seek appropriate advice where a dispute exists.

If the provider offers alternatives, keep each alternative’s scope and stated assumptions separate. For example, an inspection-only option and a replacement proposal may need different authorisations and different evidence. Ask who will communicate any additional finding and whether work should pause while the customer reviews it. Do not infer that a proposed delivery date is a guarantee unless the agreement says so.

Preserve the source of each decision

The W3C PROV Primer presents general concepts for describing information, activities and participants. A service record can use a simple version of that idea to distinguish a technician’s finding, a supplier quotation and the customer’s response. The primer does not approve a repair or determine contractual responsibility.

Keep dates, document versions, the relevant equipment identity and the people authorised to make decisions with the case. Protect customer production information, personal information and credentials in accordance with the parties’ policies. If a report is redacted, note that it is a redacted copy.

Close the case with the work actually performed

The final record should say which work was completed, by whom, on which equipment, and what verification was performed under the approved procedure. List parts that were proposed but not replaced and questions that remain unresolved. A service invoice, a technical finding and a return-to-operation decision can be related documents without being identical. Keep the approved scope available to the person reviewing the final case.

The industry information section provides additional context. This article is a documentation guide; it does not authorise a repair, establish a diagnosis or guarantee the future operation of a particular robot.