BenAbbott0022 · 13 Aug 2026, 18:11 UTC
Retain the pictured covers and ask quality to judge their surfaces under an agreed view.
7 pointsAlso identify the intended seating and presentation range. A physical reference can be sound while the proposed holder fails to present it consistently.
17 pointsDon't let the moving streak decide the physical label either way. A scratched polished cover can reflect light too. You need the surface judgement independently, then a comparison that shows whether the imaging setup reveals the relevant feature across the allowed presentation variation. Otherwise someone will tune until the accepted example looks quiet and accidentally make the real defect quiet as well.
5 pointsWhat changes between the example pictures? Is the cover reseated each time, or does it remain in place while the view changes? Those observations would help separate the holder question from the lighting question.
24 pointsThe covers were presented with small differences; we have not isolated those changes. The labels came from the images. The physical pieces are retained.
12 pointsUse one identified cover for an initial repeat-capture comparison, with setup details recorded. That is a cheap way to study variation, not a substitute for physical acceptance.
6 pointsMartin, that's the comparison I keep asking about too. I'd include reseating once the intended seat is established; leaving the piece untouched can give a lovely result that disappears as soon as somebody does the ordinary loading job.
19 pointsWho keeps the capture settings with those repeat images?
4 pointsAnd who handles an inconclusive inspection later, since a disputed reference should not quietly become the operator's job to interpret during production?
19 pointsI would keep inconclusive examples visible in the review, though not as settled tuning targets. Removing them would make the proposed setup seem less sensitive to presentation than it is.
6 pointsSara's distinction matters. An uncertain surface label and an unreliable capture are different limitations, and one cover may expose both. Record them separately so a later correction to the physical label does not erase the presentation problem that brought it to attention.
19 pointsQuality has the identified covers for assessment. I have separated pending surface decisions from capture-condition notes. No thresholds are being accepted from the original labels.
21 pointsWill the physical review include an accepted cover with a bright feature, not just suspected rejects?
23 pointsIt should, Matt. And once the small reference comparison is useful, keep a separate evaluation selection that wasn't used to choose the threshold. The vision and acceptance owners need to decide what finish variation that covers; these initial pieces cannot stand in for every future batch.
4 pointsKeep the agreed holder and camera revisions with the eventual references. Otherwise a fixture change can leave maintenance using valid pictures of a setup that no longer exists.
18 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.