Figure 7 in section 2.3 does not show a proper abstraction of the three specialized state machines for the three standard variants.

[snps-wedler]

Suggestion: Only display the Initialized super-state and let the transitions go into it so the refinements later can specify the concrete states and transitions valid in each variant.

[chrbertsch]

(e.g. "Event mode" should not be there, because it is not present in SE", and for ME and CS the transitions from initialization mode to event mode are missing)

[chrbertsch]

Reading 2.3 (https://fmi-standard.org/docs/main/#common-state-machine) again, it is stated, that it deals with the state machine modes and transitions that are present in at least two interface types.
All the different modes that it talks about in the subsections 2.3.1-2.3.8 are also visible in the state machine diagram https://fmi-standard.org/docs/main/#common-state-machine.
So perhaps removing EventMode from the diagram as realized in #2113 is no really a good idea, but we could have the corresponding box dashed and add a dashed arrow from Initialization Mode to Event Mode? And add the clarifying text suggested in #2113 (comment)

What do you think, @snps-wedler and @Tc-Fast ?

[Tc-Fast]

Changing the common-state-machine would indeed require reworking some parts of the text.

So perhaps removing EventMode from the diagram as realized in #2113 is no really a good idea, but we could have the corresponding box dashed and add a dashed arrow from Initialization Mode to Event Mode? And add the clarifying text suggested in #2113 (comment)

The suggestion with the dash boxes is less invasive, than changing all the text. I think that's a good idea then.