Three captures of one bezel have three different bright streaks labelled as defects. I can reproduce the movement by changing the presentation slightly. Quality has not yet judged the physical sample, so those labels are not suitable references for threshold selection. I have retained the originals and asked for that judgement.
Check how B7 sits as well. I've seen a locating corner left floating because the part looked flat from the camera. Better labels won't stop that happening on the next load.
No. It settled on a different edge and stayed there, which was why everyone kept calling it repeatable. The designer changed the contact arrangement after comparing the actual parts.
Who is paying for the revised image work while the physical decision is outstanding? That needs a place in the trial plan, or the old folder will win by being available.
Quality has rejected B7's edge mark now. Our trial allowance covers recapture, Anna. Bruno, tooling found two possible seats in the current nest and is reviewing that separately from lighting.
Yes, if quality identifies it as accepted. Borderline appearance matters; a collection of immaculate good parts and dramatic rejects is too kind to the test.