ClaraBennett0698 · 18 Jun 2026, 16:06 UTC
I would put the product acceptance owner in charge of the physical judgement, with the vision person responsible for linking images and capture conditions. Neither role can infer the other's answer from a filename
11 pointsAre the covers still available to examine? I would want to know that before discussing the image settings.
-1 pointsI've seen a shiny ridge called damage because nobody walked over to the sample. Don't just collect votes on the picture. Clara, what was actually observed on the surface?
12 pointsCovers retained, Nora. Hazel, nobody has recorded a physical finding. The labels came from image review, not an examination against our cosmetic requirement.
11 pointsThen the labels cannot serve as confirmed defects. Preserve the images as observations, but keep uncertainty in the reference set until the responsible person examines and classifies the corresponding regions.
22 pointsI would give each cover an identity before moving it between people. Mark its orientation in the record, not on the inspected face. Then quality and the camera team can refer to the same area without guessing.
17 pointsWould you include an accepted cover that makes a bright streak too? I'm thinking it could expose what the camera is actually reacting to.
12 pointsYes, Thomas, provided accepted is an established product judgement. A moving streak by itself does not establish that the cover is acceptable.
17 pointsOur older guessed labels are outside tuning now. Keeping them didn't require trusting them.
24 pointsI would not throw the difficult images away. Separate evidence with uncertain interpretation from confirmed examples; otherwise the trial becomes suspiciously easy.
12 pointsAnil, yes. A clean folder isn't the same as a capable inspection. Clara, will your new captures include the seating changes that moved the streak?
16 pointsProposed, not scheduled. First quality is to classify the retained regions. Then I'd compare recorded presentation changes with fixed camera settings, rather than changing several things and calling the nicest picture our baseline.
13 pointsClara, that order makes sense but don't use the same small set for every decision. You can tune until those covers look perfect and still know little about unseen production covers.
9 pointsKieran, agreed. I would identify a separate validation selection with quality, including the expected finish variation; we have not established how broad Clara's retained sample collection is
19 pointsThomas, your accepted example would be useful for teaching too. I would show the physical finding and both images together. Otherwise the next person may learn that a bright band always means reject.
10 pointsOnly a few covers retained, so no production-wide claim. Priya and Kieran, I'll keep validation selection separate from tuning. Quality hasn't supplied the physical classifications yet.
-2 pointsOne practical nuisance: who keeps those covers after the meeting? I've watched a reference sample go back into a general parts tray and become impossible to identify a second time.
23 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.