BethChan1107 · 19 Oct 2025, 13:42 UTC
Keep it out of the approved set for now, but retain the part and original images. Has quality compared it with the actual appearance requirement?
12 pointsNot yet. I've identified the plate and removed both guesses from the training handout. Thank you; keeping the source material makes more sense than deleting the confusing pictures.
18 pointsDoes it sit in one repeatable position, or can the edge catch on the holder?
17 pointsThomas's question is worth checking alongside the physical inspection. We have just seen a plate rock on an unintended holder contact. That can change the image without answering whether the surface is acceptable.
-2 pointsIt has two possible seats. One edge catches, then drops when gently settled. I won't call either picture a repeatable presentation now.
21 pointsI'd get that holder question settled before buying another lamp, though exploratory lighting pictures can still be useful if nobody quietly calls them the approved inspection method.
24 pointsWho is reviewing the holder against the range of faceplates, not only this one?
18 pointsOur fixture designer has the samples and drawing range. Quality accepted the original plate's surface. Holder revision still pending, with a confirmed reject selected for the eventual lighting comparison.
10 pointsInclude the person who will load it in that comparison. A holder that works only when its designer settles the edge carefully is not the repeatable presentation your lesson needs.
21 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .