ChenChan1051 · 31 Jul 2026, 01:27 UTC
Have the appearance owner judge identified physical bezels under the agreed method, then retain acceptable, rejected and unresolved examples separately; a camera annotation cannot settle the surface condition it is supposed to represent.
21 pointsThe selected bezels are retained. Image labels came first; physical review has not happened yet.
22 pointsRecord how those images were made while the parts are being reviewed: holder, seating, lighting and capture settings. Physical judgements improve the labels, but cannot recover undocumented presentation conditions.
23 pointsWill the person who reloads the bezel help define the repeat-placement cases? They need to reproduce the intended seating after handover.
0 pointsYes. Quality has now judged the retained examples; one real scratch is not where the bright streak was circled.
6 pointsKeep that scratch's location tied to the physical bezel during the capture comparison; reducing the bright streak is not success if the confirmed defect becomes less visible.
4 pointsAnd keep a separate validation selection once tuning begins. Familiar examples are useful for development, but they shouldn't be the only evidence used to judge the finished inspection.
21 pointsAgreed. Repeat placement still changes scratch visibility, so we're reviewing the holder and lighting before selecting thresholds.
14 pointsWho retains the physical examples and configuration record when this moves from development to routine inspection?
17 pointsQuality keeps the examples; maintenance keeps holder and lighting revisions. No commissioned inspection claim while the visibility comparison remains unfinished.
13 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.