Our FR10 inspection exercise has two images of one stainless trim plate labelled with scratches in different places. The bright streak moves when presentation changes. I have retained the plate but no signed physical judgement linking either label to it. I want to settle the references before the next software session.
Have quality look at the actual plate beside both images. We're untangling a similar bright-line claim and I nearly blamed a change in the surroundings before noticing the plate had also been reloaded.
Quality found one fine physical line, but neither image arrow points to it. The line is accepted under our finish requirement. Both supposed scratch labels came from image-only judgements.
We once preserved every original image but forgot that our teaching captions contained separate verdicts. Check those too when you correct this plate. The next person may read the slide rather than your reference index.
Yes. Quality has identified a second plate with an unacceptable scratch. We will use that and the accepted lined plate together. The old arrows and captions are withdrawn.
The accepted physical line is a useful awkward example. Otherwise people can learn that every visible line must be rejected, even after you have sorted out the moving reflections.
Can both plates be seated by the ordinary loader without individual adjustment to improve their appearance? That is worth checking before selecting the images.
The loader has repeated both in the current holder. Seating is consistent. IDs are on their storage sleeves, with each capture linked at loading, not on a contact surface.
Not consistently under the first lighting arrangement. The engineer has a second arrangement that shows it more clearly, but it also makes the accepted line stronger. That is why we kept both.
Ravi's question matters. Better visibility does not necessarily make an acceptance boundary easy to measure, particularly if the current finish judgement includes more than the image captures.
Quality distinguishes the fine brushing-related line from the deeper scratch using the agreed physical viewing method. The camera engineer has not shown that the proposed images capture enough of that distinction.
That is what we chose. Students will compare the identified samples and captures without being told the camera can already decide acceptance. The automated inspection exercise remains deferred.
Keep the agreed physical judgements available during it. Students can question the image evidence without inadvertently reopening the sample identities you have just established.