Why is our accepted cover the scratch example in the FR10 folder?

It was accepted by final inspection before I brought it over. I have asked them to check the rub again with the sample identified, because the original sheet only says pass.

Keep the original acceptance record and the new review separate. The purpose is to establish a trustworthy reference, not retroactively turn every accepted item into an uncertain one because the camera view is unfamiliar.

Quality confirmed the rub is acceptable under the product requirement. We recorded its location and the viewing conditions this time. The long bright line has no corresponding scratch on that cover.

Good. Now the label has a part behind it.

Check how it seats before you tune around the reflection. If a corner can ride up, a lighting change may hide that inconsistency rather than give you a repeatable inspection.

Include accepted and rejected surface conditions in the next imaging comparison, with their physical judgements retained. Reduced glare is not sufficient if the new arrangement also makes the required defect harder to detect.

Fixture designer found intermittent contact on the cover's formed edge. They are reviewing clearance against the drawing. The accepted cover and an identified rejected one are retained for the next imaging checks.

Who maintains the reference set after commissioning? The original annotated picture should not remain in circulation as an approved scratch example while the physical reference is being clarified.

Quality technician owns it. Old annotation moved to the development folder with its withdrawn status. Training copies are being replaced, not silently left for someone to discover later.

Will the fixture change be verified across the intended part variation before the new camera references are finalised? A correction demonstrated on the two retained samples may not represent the complete range.

Include the previously easy-seating covers as well. You don't want to improve the awkward one by moving the problem to the rest of the box.

They are in the agreed sample set. Revised fixture checks are not complete, so neither the new image set nor thresholds are approved. Thanks, Henry, for making that wider check explicit.

Will operators get the revised viewing example before the old laminated one disappears?