SaraAdams0113 · 13 Jun 2026, 03:10 UTC
Start with identified physical plates and a quality judgement against the appearance requirement. Keep the repeated views linked to each plate. An image label should not acquire authority simply because somebody typed it before the inspection meeting
6 pointsTwo retained plates have conflicting image labels. Neither has an agreed physical judgement yet.
19 pointsKeep both out of the tuning references until that is settled. You can still use their images to investigate presentation sensitivity. Uncertain examples are useful, just not as unquestioned answers
6 pointsWhat would an operator be told when the same plate looks rejected in one view and accepted in another? I'd include that uncertainty in the training notes now, rather than let the brightest image become the unofficial standard.
9 pointsThere isn't guidance yet, Yasmin. The example folder is being mistaken for an acceptance standard.
17 pointsThen label the folder's purpose. Ours collected reject in its name and suddenly everyone treated every photograph inside as a verdict. Very efficient way to manufacture certainty.
2 pointsChen's distinction helps, but keep the per-plate uncertainty visible too. Folders get copied and renamed. The part identity and physical decision should travel with the reference, not depend on remembering its original location
11 pointsI've separated investigation images from references, with the two plates explicitly awaiting quality judgement.
24 pointsQuality accepted one plate and rejected the other's physical scratch. Vision review of both presentations is next.
12 pointsKeep both views available to the trainer, Sara, once that review explains them. Seeing why a highlight wasn't the defect would help me more than being handed only the final tidy example and told to remember it.
22 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.