From 5a587c3536d3a7eadc0f6d9a3a2ab62401347472 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ScottW514 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 07:43:16 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Name the verdict, not the report, in the stale-verdict rule The section describes two channels flowing opposite ways - the controller's job-state reports and the engine's verdict - so "the report" pointed at the wrong one directly under a lead that names the verdict. --- docs/COOLING.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/COOLING.md b/docs/COOLING.md index de19aa4..922d4c1 100644 --- a/docs/COOLING.md +++ b/docs/COOLING.md @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ is running — GRBL or cloud — is a client of it, over two channels: Two properties of that split are worth understanding, because they explain the machine's behavior in odd situations: -**A missing verdict is a bad verdict.** If the report is absent or more than two +**A missing verdict is a bad verdict.** If the verdict is absent or more than two seconds old, a controller treats it as *fire blocked, hold*. The engine going away looks exactly like a fault, never like permission.