YasminAdams0093 · 3 Dec 2025, 14:41 UTC
Have the actual plates been inspected, or just their pictures?
13 pointsOnly the pictures so far, Daniel; the plates are retained with IDs, and quality is being asked to inspect those surfaces.
14 pointsWho decided the streaks were scratches then?
23 pointsOur image set improved after a loose locating strip was replaced, but the faint scuff still needed better lighting. I would ask tooling to compare the seating as well as asking quality about the actual marks.
18 pointsWe followed a bright band through several images before somebody asked where it was on the part. That question was overdue. Gabriel, the label author should be in the comparison, but the useful outcome is a corrected reference method rather than finding someone to blame.
16 pointsI meant who needs the correction, not who gets blamed.
3 pointsThat distinction matters to the trainer too. We can teach why a physical faceplate is unacceptable before the camera method is ready, but a guessed scratch folder makes a poor lesson for either job.
21 pointsGabriel and Callum, our assistant labelled the folder and is joining quality's comparison; Luis, tooling found that a corner can sit on top of the stop instead of against it.
17 pointsCould you show the assistant both seating positions with the same identified plate? Cheap way to explain why the pictures disagree, though it would not decide whether that plate is acceptable.
0 pointsHas quality made that acceptance decision yet, Yasmin?
18 pointsYes, Daniel, the main example is accepted and a separate faintly marked plate is rejected under their viewing method; both are retained, and Harish's paired-seating explanation is being added to the review.
-1 pointsDoes the supplier now know which labels were withdrawn?
12 pointsYasmin, keep the faint reject in the repeat comparison after any holder change. My loose-strip fix made the pictures more consistent without solving visibility of the actual scuff.
10 pointsLuis, thanks for reporting the unfinished bit too. It is easy for a holder repair to become the success story while the inspector is still saying the important mark cannot be seen reliably.
14 pointsKai, the supplier has the corrected labels and full frames; Luis, both physical decisions remain in the proposed repeat comparison, and the holder change has not yet been trialled.
20 pointsWho owns that repeat trial now? I would rather hear it is awaiting a named person than watch everyone assume the supplier is doing it.
25 pointsOur vision lead owns it with tooling and quality attending; it is awaiting the reviewed holder, so the camera thresholds remain undecided.
17 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .