I put our retained faceplate back in its holder and the red scratch arrow landed on a different bright line. The physical mark near the fixing hole had not moved. We already have quality's accepted and rejected examples, but the saved images do not say how each faceplate was seated.
I want a useful comparison before anyone tunes the inspection. The current set could teach a camera to dislike whichever reflection happened to be there.
Keep the unlabelled ones somewhere separate though. They may still show how much the presentation wanders, even if nobody can honestly call the streak a scratch.
Does the retained rejected example show its physical mark in the proposed camera view? A correctly identified sample is not much help if the holder conceals the defect you want the station to judge.
Harish, the fixing-hole mark is partly behind the holder lip. Tooling has been asked to expose that area while keeping the intended support. Hana, the uncertain pictures are retained separately.
Please include the person who changes these over when the holder is revised. Our last little visibility improvement made the plate easy to put in crooked. It was obvious to the designer where it belonged, less obvious with a stack waiting beside you.
The revised holder exposes the mark, and both loaders can seat the faceplate consistently in the bench comparison. We found the old lip was also letting one corner sit high. Its shadow and the wandering streak are now separated from the labelled defect.
We recaptured the retained accepted faceplate and both rejected examples in the revised holder, with their identities and image settings. Quality confirmed those labels. The broader sample comparison is still outstanding.