OliverAli0189 · 4 Jun 2025, 14:14 UTC
Whoever owns the cosmetic acceptance rules should own the physical judgement. Keep the plate ID with the images, so the next person doesn't relabel a reflection just because the filename sounds certain.
1 pointsQuality owns the rule. Engineering named the files. Neither realised the other had changed labels. We have three versions of good.
0 pointsStop merging those folders for now. Otherwise you'll spend the next review guessing which version of good taught the system to reject a perfectly ordinary plate.
16 pointsGet quality to examine the physical plates, yes. But don't throw away the conflicting images. They may show a seating or lighting problem you need to reproduce
-1 pointsAgreed on keeping the evidence, but outside the approved reference set until the labels are settled. Who will maintain that set after the commissioning people leave?
0 pointsQuality technician has taken it on. We separated disputed pictures. The clean plate's stripe moves when it is reseated, even without moving the lamp.
6 pointsCheck the seating repeatability. Could be a tiny angle change. I can't tell from the pictures alone, but I'd compare repeated presentations of that one plate before changing thresholds
19 pointsAnd use a genuinely marked plate alongside it. Making the clean one look nicer is only half the job.
7 pointsLabel the physical storage slots too. We had numbered photos and a box of loose samples. Very organised computer, very confused people.
6 pointsThanks, Chloe. Slots labelled now. Fixture team found the plate can sit on a small ledge instead of its intended supports. They're reviewing that before more images.
8 pointsDid the technician finish sorting the disputed labels, or has everyone wandered into the fixture fix and left that bit hanging?
6 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .