Current drawing distinguishes the face and flange, but our image folder has one generic scratch label. Quality has agreed to judge the retained bezels against the two actual requirements.

Are the supplier's quoted views meant to cover both areas, or only the face?

We had a lesson where a whole-part reject label made every arrow on the image look like a confirmed defect; linking each annotation to its physical location and reason stopped that spreading into the next comparison.

Mina, face only in the quote. Quality says the flange still needs its own check under a different criterion. We cannot quietly count it as covered by the face image.

Can the loader identify which face is being presented from the current holder instructions?

Have quality classify the actual features within each required area. A rejected bezel can also carry an ordinary reflection, and a bright accepted face remains useful for assessing false detections.

Yes, Yasmin, the holder orientation is clear. Quality accepted the bright face used as our main scratch example. A second bezel has a confirmed face scratch. The disputed flange mark is still being assessed under its separate requirement.

Then has the enquiry been corrected, so the supplier is not pricing an invented face defect?

Corrected sample list sent. Accepted bright face and identified face scratch stay together; flange observation remains labelled undecided. Supplier has been asked to price the missing flange inspection scope separately.

Did quality resolve that flange observation yet, Nadia, or are you still waiting before deciding how it belongs in the reference set?

They accepted it under the applicable flange criterion and added the reason to its physical reference. Face-lighting comparison remains due. We now have usable labels, but I haven't received a proposal covering the whole inspection job.

Keep the separate criteria in that proposal request. The next supplier should not have to infer them from which bezel happened to be accepted overall.