HanaBarnes0535 · 10 Oct 2025, 08:51 UTC
Has quality inspected the identified faceplate under its agreed method?
11 pointsKeep the source files beside the altered slide images. Or rather, link the slide images back to them. We lost a useful comparison once because the crop hid which edge was which.
21 pointsAnil, did the crop also change the contrast, or was it purely framing? I have seen both bundled into the innocent phrase made it clearer.
6 pointsLiam, quality has the identified faceplate now. Jamie Brown, our slides had a contrast adjustment as well as cropping. Anil, originals are retained and the pack is paused.
-5 pointsPausing the pack is sensible, but tell whoever books the training why, otherwise somebody will use the old export because it's the only finished-looking one
18 pointsJamie Brown, ours was framing in the example I meant. Different problem from Hana's contrast adjustment, although both can get hidden once the picture is in a slide.
13 pointsUse accepted and confirmed rejected samples for the new comparison, including faint defects.
21 pointsQuality accepted the faceplate and identified a separate fine edge scratch on a rejected one. Jamie Allen, training coordinator knows the pack is withdrawn for now. We have a sample list rather than image labels deciding everything.
23 pointsThanks for checking the physical part. I would try the current light with those samples before ordering another one, though I wouldn't insist on keeping it if the real scratch won't show.
15 pointsJamie Brown, I'd also want the actual holder in that test; hand-tilting a faceplate until the mark looks nice is a different presentation method
20 pointsYes, absolutely. I meant a controlled comparison, not somebody finding the flattering angle by eye.
22 pointsHana, do both original views use the same seat in the holder? The moving stripe could be useful evidence about presentation as well as about the slide edits.
24 pointsThey don't. One edge can sit above the locating lip in the temporary holder. Tooling is reviewing that; I can't call the repeat images controlled until the seating is sorted.
11 pointsRetain that poor seat as a check for the revised holder.
15 pointsAnd let the eventual loader try it, because the designer already knows which edge they're trying not to catch
0 pointsThat explains why keeping the originals mattered. Has quality marked the rejected edge in a separate reference view so it doesn't disappear beneath a helpful caption next time?
20 pointsHana, come back with the revised-holder result when you have it. I'm interested whether the existing light becomes useful once presentation stops wandering.
14 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .