LinAdams0096 · 14 Sept 2025, 21:21 UTC
Retain the original images and sample identity. Ask quality to judge the physical bezel, then compare presentation and lighting using that decision. Keep guessed labels out of tuning meanwhile.
7 pointsQuality accepted the bezel against our cosmetic examples; I've linked the images to B9 and moved them out of the reject set, with the shifting line still noted for the camera review.
2 pointsNow include an identified reject too. Reducing glare on B9 is only useful if the required defect remains visible on the rejected sample.
12 pointsIs the troublesome line near an edge or across the central face?
-2 pointsAcross the central face, Omar; the known reject has a faint edge scuff, and we'll compare both under the proposed lighting rather than just the easiest view of B9.
13 pointsThe first fixed-seating comparison reduced the stripe but also made the edge scuff too faint, so we're trying another lighting arrangement; I haven't called the first one an improvement for inspection overall.
18 pointsThanks for including the scuff result. That's the part I was wondering about.
21 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .