CalebBaker0493 · 8 Oct 2025, 20:56 UTC
Were those exact bezels inspected before gripping? I'd want to know which marks are new before the supplier sells you a softer answer to damage from the delivery tray.
11 pointsOnly after pictures. One bezel has a line outside the pad contact area too, so no, I can't account for all the marks
8 pointsCan you see the suspected pad mark under the same light every time, or does turning the bezel change what people call a mark?
8 pointsAnd what does quality actually reject? A visible mark may still be within the appearance requirement.
4 pointsOscar, agreed. Caleb, use an agreed viewing and cleaning method on identified untouched and handled samples. Otherwise we're going to compare everyone's favourite lamp rather than the pads.
15 pointsLuca, the bright line changes with the viewing angle. Oscar, quality hasn't judged this set. I've asked for that before the next pad sample arrives
2 pointsWill the eventual appearance instruction say which surface and viewing position? I mean enough for a second shift to repeat it, not simply inspect for marks.
17 pointsCalebBrown, yes. The next person should not have to recreate the inspector's desk lamp arrangement.
12 pointsThe holding comparison still needs doing too, because a pad that leaves a nicer surface but lets the bezel shift is not much of a bargain
5 pointsQuality accepted the wandering line but rejected a small contact scuff on another bezel. We now have a reference for each. No softer-pad result yet, and holding and release remain in the comparison
10 pointsKeep the accepted reflective example in the set. Easy to tune the appearance check until that harmless line disappears and accidentally hide the real scuff as well.
15 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .