I've put the real bezels beside our proposed FR5 images and found people disagreeing about the inspection area as well as the bright streaks. One reviewer includes the flange hidden in assembly; another judges only the visible face.
I need quality to settle that before the camera supplier tunes anything. Or rather, before we give them a folder pretending it is already settled. How should I keep useful examples without turning every disputed line into a confirmed scratch?
Which part of our bezel are the FR5 scratch labels judging?
NadiaAbbott0030 · 2026年4月1日 19:00 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
13 条回复
Which drawing or finish requirement defines the inspection area? Begin with that, before asking the camera supplier to interpret your reviewers' different assumptions.
8分Current drawing distinguishes the face and flange, but our image folder has one generic scratch label. Quality has agreed to judge the retained bezels against the two actual requirements.
5分Are the supplier's quoted views meant to cover both areas, or only the face?
21分We had a lesson where a whole-part reject label made every arrow on the image look like a confirmed defect; linking each annotation to its physical location and reason stopped that spreading into the next comparison.
23分Mina, face only in the quote. Quality says the flange still needs its own check under a different criterion. We cannot quietly count it as covered by the face image.
16分Can the loader identify which face is being presented from the current holder instructions?
10分Have quality classify the actual features within each required area. A rejected bezel can also carry an ordinary reflection, and a bright accepted face remains useful for assessing false detections.
14分Yes, Yasmin, the holder orientation is clear. Quality accepted the bright face used as our main scratch example. A second bezel has a confirmed face scratch. The disputed flange mark is still being assessed under its separate requirement.
10分Then has the enquiry been corrected, so the supplier is not pricing an invented face defect?
20分Corrected sample list sent. Accepted bright face and identified face scratch stay together; flange observation remains labelled undecided. Supplier has been asked to price the missing flange inspection scope separately.
4分Did quality resolve that flange observation yet, Nadia, or are you still waiting before deciding how it belongs in the reference set?
23分They accepted it under the applicable flange criterion and added the reason to its physical reference. Face-lighting comparison remains due. We now have usable labels, but I haven't received a proposal covering the whole inspection job.
16分Keep the separate criteria in that proposal request. The next supplier should not have to infer them from which bezel happened to be accepted overall.
16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： .