Our FR10 bezel-inspection proposal includes several images of the same retained sample. A bright feature moves when the bezel is reseated, yet each image is labelled with a scratch at that feature. We need a physical appearance decision and an explanation of the presentation variation before those labels become training references.
Nobody had inspected it against the current appearance sheet. The labels were provisional notes from the imaging session, copied into the reference folder without that qualification.
On a previous cover trial, the nest contributed to changing highlights. Has tooling checked whether your bezel sits consistently, or are the presentation changes still unmeasured?
Unmeasured so far. We have marked the sample identity but not its seated orientation. Tooling will check the supports and repeatability before the next imaging comparison.
And when quality gives its decision, attach the location of any actual unacceptable mark rather than letting the image's brightest feature inherit the rejection reason
Quality has rejected this bezel for an edge scuff, separate from the moving bright feature. That scuff is now identified on the sample record. Seating and imaging checks are still pending.
I would keep it alongside the accepted samples and record the seated position for each capture. Then you can assess whether the proposed view reveals the actual defect under the expected presentation variation.