AnilAli0201 · 15 Sept 2025, 16:41 UTC
Identify that physical cover and ask quality to judge it against the appearance requirement. Retain the original images with their presentation details. The imaging comparison needs known samples, not a vote on which bright line looks most scratch-like.
21 pointsCover identified. Quality found an edge nick; decision on acceptability pending.
1 pointsKeep that nick location with the images, and wait for its disposition before calling the cover a reject reference. The moving lines may be a separate imaging problem.
22 pointsDid the cover rock, or just settle in a different position each time?
3 pointsSettled differently. No obvious rocking during our bench check.
19 pointsDoes the proposed camera view actually show that edge nick?
6 pointsBarely. Bright centre gets most of the image. Camera team is reviewing the field of view.
23 pointsInclude the whole feature location in that review. Reducing the central glare would not help much if the actual unacceptable feature is outside the useful view.
10 pointsQuality rejected the nick. Cover retained as an identified reject; revised imaging and seating comparison still pending.
12 pointsKeep it in the comparison, even if the cleaner covers make the pictures look better.
11 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .