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。
EricBlair · 2025年11月12日 17:52 UTC
Quality should identify the samples and their actual acceptance decisions, with the vision reviewer defining the comparison; are both finishes intended for this station?
8分Both are in the proposed job list, but our sample labels don't distinguish them and one supplier image doesn't identify a physical cover at all.
12分Give each intended finish its own identified examples, because our recent comparison needed representative finishes as well as the difficult reject; one attractive supplier image cannot stand in for both.
17分Can somebody match the retained covers to their incoming job records?
4分Yes, incoming records identify the two retained sets; quality is examining them separately and the unidentified supplier image is out of the working reference set.
0分Keep the faint real defect in the lighting comparison when quality identifies it, because on ours reducing the stripe also made the edge scuff too faint to use.
17分Has quality identified a rejected feature for each relevant finish, or are those decisions still pending?
11分They've identified a scratch on one finish and accepted the retained examples of the other; we still need a suitable reject for that second finish before calling the set representative.
23分And keep that gap explicit in the trial scope, otherwise a result for the first finish tends to acquire an everyone-knows-they're-similar extension.
20分Second-finish reject now retained and judged by quality; both finish groups are going into the presentation comparison, with the original unidentified photo kept only in the correspondence archive.
10分Who keeps those reference covers apart after people finish handling them?
10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： .