Why does reseating our cover create another reject example?

Quality has accepted the cover. There is a small rub near one fixing hole, within their allowed example. The broad stripe does not correspond to a mark they can find.

Good, keep the rub in the image comparison rather than cropping it out to concentrate on the stripe. You need to see how the setup treats a known physical feature too.

We have not checked that closely. The holding fixture is a trial nest, and the rim seems to catch one corner before the cover settles.

Can the fixture designer inspect that corner before another lighting change?

Yes, but don't assume the corner explains every image difference. Keep the same camera and lighting settings through that comparison or you'll lose the useful link again.

Designer found contact at the rim where the trial nest was meant to leave clearance. They are revising that area. Camera and light settings are recorded for the before-and-after captures.

Use the same identified cover after the fixture revision, so the comparison does not accidentally become a different part under a different setup.

The revised nest seats that cover more consistently in the bench check. New images still have some bright variation, though the big change after reseating is reduced. I am not calling the inspection finished.

Is the acceptable rub still visible in the revised images, Maria?

Yes, but only faintly in some views. We need a rejected sample with an agreed defect for the next imaging comparison as well.

Thanks for the fixture result. Did the designer update the nest drawing?

And have quality choose that reject by inspecting the part, not by finding the most dramatic picture in the old folder. You've just seen how persuasive the wrong bright line can be.

Nest drawing is now revision B, Liam. Quality has selected and identified a scratched cover for the next comparison. No new threshold chosen yet.