简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
GraceCarter1016 · 2026年2月22日 20:00 UTC
Keep the actual bezels. Can quality find those marks physically, and identify where they were before handling? Changing pads now could lose your comparison without answering it.
8分Actual bezels retained. No before-handling photos tied to them. Quality has not agreed which marks fail.
3分Then I'd stop calling them pad marks for now, though keeping the offered pads available for a proper comparison seems reasonable
12分Can you put a recognisable feature in each picture? We had two sides of a round part described as the same mark. The close-ups were sharp but useless for locating it
7分Sarah, did you recover the locations from the parts?
8分Our quality technician is using the fixing notch for orientation and marking locations on a sketch, not the finish.
8分Jasper, yes. We still had the parts. One line was on the opposite face from the one in the complaint, so we withdrew the supposed before-and-after pair
22分Grace, is the supplier also comparing how the softer pads let go? We can make a lovely contact patch and still hand the operator an awkward release.
19分Any physical decisions back on your bezels?
15分One real reject confirmed. Other line is a reflection on an accepted bezel. Both retained for the pad comparison.
16分Does the real reject match the contact area, Grace, or are we still just giving the pads first refusal on the blame?
19分It overlaps, but no identified before state exists. Cause unknown. David, holding and release are now explicit trial items.
5分Cheers. Who judges the finish after that trial?
15分Our quality technician. Same agreed appearance method before and after, identified samples and complete pad arrangements. Supplier accepted that trial scope.
8分Useful. Keep that confirmed reject in the appearance reference, but don't enter it as newly damaged in a pad trial. The missing before condition doesn't become known because the trial plan is better.
21分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .