YasminAdams0093 · 20 Aug 2025, 07:00 UTC
Has quality identified the physical bezel and judged that edge against the acceptance examples, independently of those two displayed images?
6 pointsQuality has it now; they found a faint line on the physical edge, but have not decided whether it exceeds the cosmetic limit.
19 pointsLeave its label undecided until they do. You can still compare the images without asking the uncertain sample to teach the system what a reject is.
7 pointsSave the crop coordinates and display scaling with the comparison. Or at least the exact source image and region, so another person can reproduce what you saw.
10 pointsFarah, both crops came from one source frame; I've saved the regions, and quality is comparing the bezel with the agreed examples.
8 pointsOne source frame helps, but it doesn't settle how the edge behaves when you put the bezel back in the nest. I'd hate to perfect a crop that only works for one lucky seating.
1 pointsHas the acceptance decision been made before you start that reseating comparison?
12 pointsQuality accepted the line against the cosmetic examples, and we've retained the bezel with that decision; the reseating comparison is arranged but has not run yet.
13 pointsInclude a known rejected edge in the same comparison. Otherwise you may find a presentation that hides both an acceptable line and a defect you need to see.
14 pointsWe tried both pieces and the rejected edge disappears in one seating too, so the fixture and lighting need more work; thank you, Farah, that second piece stopped us celebrating too early.
20 pointsThere it is. Keep that bad seating in the comparison set; someone will suggest the same nice-looking view again once the awkward sample goes back in its drawer.
17 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .