Our FR10 cover crop cuts away the real rejection mark

Full view retained and linked. The incorrect arrow is removed. The cover remains rejected for the identified rim groove, not relabelled accepted because the arrow was wrong.

We had a rejected piece with a completely unrelated arrow too. Keep the physical judgement and the image mistake separate, then ask whether the intended view can actually show the defect quality cares about.

Does the inspection scope include that rim all the way round, Grace? A wider crop only helps if the original camera view actually contains the surface. I would ask that before somebody solves this by drawing a bigger box.

The whole rim is in scope. Part of it is hidden behind the holder in the current view. Vision and tooling are comparing a revised presentation, with the original grooved cover retained.

Can the loader recognise that presentation without using the camera image?

And keep an accepted cover in the new comparison, not only the groove

Oscar, loader is reviewing the proposed seat with tooling. Fiona, quality supplied accepted covers with ordinary bright bands too. No new threshold chosen from the grooved sample alone.

Any full captures back? Interested whether the groove survived the holder change rather than just moving the bright band somewhere less annoying.

The revised presentation exposes the rim groove. The loader can confirm the checked seat, but vision found another rim sector is obscured in this view. They are considering a second defined presentation.

Then show that missing sector on the coverage sheet. Our team once treated an image containing the known defect as proof it covered every possible defect location. Useful sample, wildly enthusiastic conclusion.

Who checks loading for the second presentation?

Same loader and tooling designer, with vision checking coverage. The first-view result is retained, but the second presentation is still a proposal. The old cropped lesson is withdrawn.

Thanks for leaving the coverage gap visible in the update