ZaraArcher0395 · 2 Sept 2025, 16:13 UTC
Ask quality to examine the identified bezel and locate any actual rejected mark. I'm no appearance inspector, but I wouldn't ask software to learn those labels while nobody can point to the supposed scratch on the part.
10 pointsQuality accepted the bezel. They found a light handling rub within our appearance allowance.
7 pointsKeep that accepted-but-rubbed example. It sounds more useful than only keeping perfect parts. You'll still need confirmed rejects, and the camera comparison has to show their real features under the presentation you intend to use.
23 pointsCompare the original captures before changing equipment. Were those two views made with fixed lighting, or did someone move the lamp while turning the bezel?
14 pointsLamp fixed. Bezel hand-seated in a loose holder. Our notes did at least record that.
22 pointsLoose how? Can it rock, or just slide sideways?
10 pointsZara, Anika's question is worth taking to tooling with the actual holder. A repeated image comparison needs to describe that movement, not just call every different picture a lighting problem.
8 pointsIt rocks against the rim stop. Tooling found a contact-height mismatch and is reviewing the holder.
9 pointsNew reference parts selected by quality. Holder change not tested yet. Keeping the accepted rubbed bezel too.
22 pointsUse those same identified parts when the holder returns. Otherwise a fresh sample pile will make the before-and-after comparison harder than it needs to be.
16 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .