I understand the separation of programming and operating, as I am a programmer as well as having studied automated automotive valve welding and grinding at a le

I understand the separation of programming and operating, as I am a programmer as well as having studied automated automotive valve welding and grinding at a leading supplier (friction stem and seat welding, among others). The point I was making, though probably not clear I admit, was that a factory operator could be seen as a "machine programmer" simply because they were given that title by the production owners, and trained on the job as such. For example, technicians regularly do electrician functions in large factories, and all safety and liability issues that arise with that. And, not all factory robots are contained in an enclosure, they are in free 3D space; what interlock would you suggest to keep a human out? Visual, ultrasonic? I simply ask who takes responsibility for general machine programming Safety if there is not a simple enclosure interlock situation? BTW, she didn't get by an interlock; apparently there was not one there - which is my point exactly. BTW, a previous fatal incident the proposed fine was <$100k, not a shut down - that doesn't seem much of a disincentive to me.