I have kept the FR5 cover examples tied to identified parts and limited the claim to those samples, after seeing how easily a small improvement gets overstated. The problem now is the folder labels: they follow a bright stripe that moves when the cover is reseated. I want to fix the reference method before tuning.
Quality has the retained covers. I have separated its physical decisions from our image labels rather than let the folder name decide which part is a reject.
And keep that revision with the eventual capture set, because a repeatable image from one holder should not silently become the expected result after tooling changes.
Fiona, temporary holder revision A. Two covers can sit on a stop instead of against it. Tooling is reviewing that contact, with the same parts retained for comparison.
Did quality confirm an actual faint defect among those retained parts, Jack? A seating improvement should still be judged on whether that mark remains visible.
Yes, one faint edge scuff is a confirmed reject under the inspection method. The accepted shiny cover stays in the set too. Holder review is open, so we have no new threshold result.
Thanks for keeping both, Jack; let the next loader try the reviewed seating method as well, so the repeat comparison does not depend on the designer knowing where that edge catches.