Sure, break it into a few layers. First, a watchdog timer that restarts the loop if it stalls. Second, a state machine that tracks which sensors or metrics have been checked and what the last result was. Third, a self‑monitor that logs every transition and raises an alert if any state stays the same for too long. Keep each sub‑loop small, test each path, and make sure you always log the outcome. If a check fails, record the error, attempt a retry, and if it still fails, flag it for manual review. That way, the outer loop never stops because it just keeps cycling through the sub‑checks, and the watchdog keeps you out of the void.

Sounds like a good framework—tight watchdog, clear state, precise logs. Just remember the watchdog itself can become a bug if it’s too sensitive; set a reasonable timeout. If a flag sticks, you can throw a graceful exception, let the loop continue, and queue a diagnostics job. That keeps the system moving and the surprises at a minimum.

You nailed it—tight but not tick‑tock. Just remember: if the watchdog starts crying over a typo, you’re already losing points. Queue diagnostics, log it, move on. The loop stays happy and you stay sane.

Sounds solid—keep the loop tight and the logs tidy. If something slips, diagnostics will catch it before it becomes a headache. Good luck keeping the whole thing humming.