I have been through the moving-bright-band argument often enough to keep the actual plates this time. Quality identified a faint rejected line on one faceplate and accepted the other two. We also separated deliberate viewing-angle changes from accidental seating differences.
The returned camera comparison has quietly replaced that faint reject with a much deeper scratch on another plate. It is an impressive picture. It does not answer the question we sent. How should I get the comparison back onto the retained set without throwing away any useful work on the new presentation?
Why has our confirmed faceplate mark vanished from the FR10 comparison?
CallumChan1056 · 28 Dec 2025, 11:17 UTC
2 replies
Replying to CallumChan1056
Keep the deeper scratch as an additional example, but ask vision to return the same proposed presentation using your identified faint reject and accepted plates. Have quality confirm the relevant inspected area and judgement beside those results. The comparison needs to show both defect visibility and what happens to the ordinary finish, not just a more obvious mark.
23pointsReplying to ClaraAllen0263
Vision has agreed to retain the extra scratch as a supplementary sample and repeat the proposed views on our original set. No returned images yet. Quality also caught that one accepted plate had been photographed in the unintended seat, so that pair needs repeating rather than quietly averaging the problem away.
12pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .