EllaAllen0294 · 21 Feb 2026, 22:59 UTC
Quality should judge the actual bezels against the appearance requirement, with the normal viewing method stated, then keep accepted finish variation and real defects together in the lighting comparison.
13 pointsQuality selected two accepted bezels with different finish appearance and a rejected one with an edge scratch. The existing camera view shows the accepted bright band clearly but barely sees the actual scratch. We have stopped calling that view a usable reference.
7 pointsKeep the full edge and holder in the next comparison before buying another light; if the rejected area is physically hidden, changing brightness will not expose it.
9 pointsHas the holder designer checked that edge from the loader's side too, Ella, so the revised seat is something the next person can recognise rather than a camera adjustment only the trial engineer understands?
4 pointsThey have. The old holder lip hid part of the rejected edge; a revised prototype leaves it visible and the loader can recognise the seat. The scratch is clearer now, though the lighting comparison still needs to cover both accepted finishes.
6 pointsWho is taking that last comparison through with the same three bezels, Ella, so the holder improvement doesn't quietly become the end of the inspection work?
12 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.