YasminAdams0093 · 4 Sept 2025, 20:22 UTC
Keep the images, remove the guessed decisions, and link each view to its actual faceplate.
7 pointsWe can identify four pieces from their reverse markings, with quality reviewing them now; three other image groups cannot yet be tied to physical samples.
10 pointsLeave those three groups out of the labelled set, then. You can keep them as examples of the confusing glare without pretending you know what the parts were.
15 pointsAre the four identified faceplates enough to cover the intended surface variation? They may be a useful starting comparison without being a complete acceptance reference set.
12 pointsNo, Henry, they're only our first identified group; quality is selecting additional accepted and rejected examples across the finishes we expect.
12 pointsAnd keep their IDs with the new captures. That's the bit that got lost before.
14 pointsUse the original images for that comparison, not pictures pulled back out of a presentation. I found a supposed scratch edge change when I opened the source file on another faceplate job. Still had to find the actual plate afterward.
22 pointsOscar, we have originals for the four, and quality has now accepted two and rejected two; the shifting bright stripe appears on one accepted piece as well as a reject.
11 pointsHow did the real reject feature behave on reseating? That is the follow-up I'd like to hear, not just whether the stripe got bored and moved.
9 pointsThe faint rejected line disappears in one seating, Sofia; the fixture designer is reviewing how that faceplate rests before we collect the larger set, so tuning stays paused.
24 pointsInclude that seating in the review, along with the identified reject. It is a useful failed case against which to assess the proposed change.
6 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .