I'm reviewing UR5e presentation of reflective aluminium bezels to a fixed camera before commissioning. Bright streaks move with small presentation changes, yet the example set calls them scratches. I need physical dispositions linked to controlled captures before anyone tunes against those labels.
Retain the bezels and identify the surface region for each annotation. Quality can then inspect the actual region and record its decision independently of the camera label. Keep the original annotations as disputed evidence, not as truth to overwrite quietly.
Yes. A bezel can contain both acceptable finish variation and a rejectable mark. Separate region-level observations from the final part disposition so the camera trial does not lose that distinction.
Would you keep the present light arrangement for the first repeat captures? I'm thinking of getting a baseline before everyone starts improving different things at once.
I would record it and repeat the presentation first. Then change one identified factor at a time for diagnosis. That does not mean the present arrangement must survive into the final design.
Quality found acceptable finish at one travelling streak and a small rejectable score elsewhere on that same bezel. The old whole-image scratch label concealed that difference.
Not consistently in the current arrangement. The identified repeat captures show the score losing contrast while the broad streak becomes stronger. I won't use a threshold that simply follows the brightest feature.
And compare more than that one scored bezel. It is a useful diagnostic part, but choosing every condition around it can make the later result look stronger than it is. Keep independently selected parts aside for the evaluation once the candidate arrangement is fixed.
I meant a diagnostic adjustment, Imran, not selecting the final arrangement from a single specimen. Thanks for spelling out where that experiment should stop.
The tooling and vision engineers are defining the presentation range together. We have a revised lighting candidate that preserves the score in our diagnostic repeats, with the lamp position recorded. No independent evaluation yet.
Yes, the reference group now includes several accepted finish appearances and separately identified defects. The old guesses are excluded from tuning; quality's decisions remain linked to the physical parts and regions.
Yes. The trial engineer controls revisions and keeps the disputed originals apart. We've corrected the reference process; commissioning still depends on the evaluation, not on the nicer diagnostic pictures.