EricBlair · 12 Nov 2025, 17:52 UTC
Quality should identify the samples and their actual acceptance decisions, with the vision reviewer defining the comparison; are both finishes intended for this station?
8 pointsBoth are in the proposed job list, but our sample labels don't distinguish them and one supplier image doesn't identify a physical cover at all.
12 pointsGive each intended finish its own identified examples, because our recent comparison needed representative finishes as well as the difficult reject; one attractive supplier image cannot stand in for both.
17 pointsCan somebody match the retained covers to their incoming job records?
4 pointsYes, incoming records identify the two retained sets; quality is examining them separately and the unidentified supplier image is out of the working reference set.
0 pointsKeep the faint real defect in the lighting comparison when quality identifies it, because on ours reducing the stripe also made the edge scuff too faint to use.
17 pointsHas quality identified a rejected feature for each relevant finish, or are those decisions still pending?
11 pointsThey've identified a scratch on one finish and accepted the retained examples of the other; we still need a suitable reject for that second finish before calling the set representative.
23 pointsAnd keep that gap explicit in the trial scope, otherwise a result for the first finish tends to acquire an everyone-knows-they're-similar extension.
20 pointsSecond-finish reject now retained and judged by quality; both finish groups are going into the presentation comparison, with the original unidentified photo kept only in the correspondence archive.
10 pointsWho keeps those reference covers apart after people finish handling them?
10 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .