SaraAdams0113 · 16 Jun 2026, 07:25 UTC
Are the repeated views linked to the same physical faceplate? That would let quality judge the part without accidentally treating each image as another specimen.
12 pointsYes, the plate identities are retained. Their image labels disagree with each other.
17 pointsI would keep those disagreements together for the review. They show where the labels are uncertain. Deleting the awkward view can make the folder look consistent without making the surface decision any better.
6 pointsI'd put the actual plates in front of quality and the imaging person together, because another round of annotated pictures sounds cheaper until everyone spends half a day describing a different stripe
-6 pointsOliver, that joint look also helps the handover writer know which feature people mean, though I would still want an identified decision beside the image rather than rely on everyone remembering the meeting
11 pointsAnd keep one agreed rejected plate in the later imaging comparison, because reducing the bright streak is no success if the real defect disappears with it.
10 pointsKeep the original images untouched. Revised labels can live beside them. Otherwise the next reviewer cannot tell whether the judgement changed or the evidence was replaced.
15 pointsQuality accepted one retained plate and confirmed a scratch on another. Both will stay in the comparison.
19 pointsWhich imaging condition are you changing first? If presentation and lighting move together, you may improve the result without learning which change helped.
21 pointsPresentation first. The current nest allows the plate to sit at visibly different angles.
12 pointsThat sounds worth a simple seat comparison before buying lights, provided the fixture person confirms what the plate is meant to contact rather than just forcing it flatter
18 pointsSara, how will the person loading it recognise the intended seat? A holder can reduce variation while still leaving its correct use obvious only to the person who designed it
17 pointsRebecca's question matters for the repeated views too. I'd include removal and reseating under the intended method, not just several photographs while the plate remains untouched in a good position.
6 pointsNora, yes, and the rejected plate needs those repeated presentations as well; it should not get one carefully chosen angle while the accepted sample gets all the awkward ones.
11 pointsWho owns the retained samples between sessions? A useful reference set is less useful after someone polishes the marks out while tidying the bench.
-1 pointsQuality holds them now. Tooling is defining the contacts and seating check; no new lighting selected.
18 pointsDo the old captures have recorded settings, or should they remain examples of the label conflict rather than a quantitative baseline?
10 pointsSettings are incomplete. I'll use new controlled captures for the comparison and retain the originals as history.
16 pointsThat's a useful limit, Sara; the old folder can explain why you're doing the work without becoming a pretend baseline with settings somebody filled in from memory
16 pointsThe revised-seat comparison reduced the moving highlight on the accepted plate; the confirmed scratch remained visible. Wider sample range remains untested.
17 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.