Our proposed FR5 trim-plate inspection has two pictures of the same plate marked with different scratches. A narrow bright band moves when the plate is reseated. We retained the plate, but neither label has a physical inspection decision behind it.
I want to sort the reference before tuning. I also want the person covering this job to understand which images they can use, rather than inherit my private explanation of the folder. What should we keep together?
On a handover I supported, the samples were labelled but the image copies had lost those identities. Keep the physical part ID, quality decision and full images linked. Ask quality to judge this retained plate before either scratch label enters the reference set.
Quality has the plate. The camera person is checking the holder. We have withdrawn both scratch labels, but the original images are retained with their sample identity and capture notes.
Aisha, would you keep those old images in the ordinary reference folder with an uncertain tag, or separate them so someone cannot select them accidentally?
Separate from the approved references, Ravi. They can remain accessible as investigation evidence. I would not ask a covering operator to remember which uncertain tag happens to mean do not use this one.
No defect outside the appearance requirement was found; quality accepted it. The holder review found two possible rim seats. We are keeping the plate as an accepted difficult example while tooling reviews that seating.
Quality has supplied an identified rejected plate as well. Both will be compared after the proposed holder change. I mean that is the agreed plan, not a completed trial. The covering operator is included in the reference handover.
That gives the next person the sample decisions and the remaining uncertainty separately. Has tooling also shown how the intended seat will be recognised during setup?