Our UR5e inspection examples show the same reflective bezel in two slightly different seats, with bright bands labelled as different scratches. I can still identify the bezel, but no one has recorded a physical appearance decision for it.
I want to stop those arrows becoming the acceptance reference while we sort the holder and lighting. What should the tutor keep from the current images?
Bezel scratch labels that change with the UR5e presentation
JamieAdams0121 · 2026年1月8日 17:28 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
4 条回复
Keep the originals with their uncertain labels clearly withdrawn from acceptance use; the moving bands are useful diagnostic material, not a reason to teach either scratch claim as fact.
25分The tutor has removed the scratch exercise and kept the originals separately. Quality is checking the identified bezel; the holder's repeat seating still needs comparison.
20分Ask quality to retain an accepted example with a strong reflection and a genuinely rejected feature too. On an earlier comparison, making the image quieter also made a faint defect harder to see. You need both sides of that tradeoff visible before choosing the view or tuning thresholds.
17分And name who owns the replacement lesson. Withdrawing the old one helps, but someone still needs to bring the physical decisions and new images back together.
12分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .