My FR10 comparison already taught me that less glare can hide the faint scratch; for this UR5e bezel set I've kept quality-checked parts, but the image labels still follow moving highlights. What should I retain?
Which UR5e bezel images should survive our reference-set review?
AnilAli0201 · 2025年11月30日 14:00 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
8 条回复
回复 AnilAli0201
Keep the identified parts and full source images, with their capture conditions. Exclude unsupported scratch labels from tuning, but retain their history so the next person can see why the working set changed.
15分Originals retained. The working folder now separates confirmed surface marks from unverified image labels.
0分回复 AnilAli0201
Does the faint rejected bezel appear in the new comparison too, or only the easier-to-see marks?
13分It is included. Not the same part from the FR10 work; quality identified this one separately.
8分回复 AnilAli0201
Then compare its repeat presentations alongside an accepted difficult surface, keeping the part identities attached to every capture. A set of obvious scratches alone will give you a very comfortable but incomplete answer.
9分回复 AnilAli0201
Can the next loader tell when the bezel is seated correctly? I do not know your holder, but a small unnoticed tilt could keep making new-looking examples.
9分回复 OmarChen1187
Omar, worth checking before they tidy the folder again; the loader needs something more concrete than make it look like this photograph.
24分回复 OmarChen1187
One locating edge is hard to see. Tooling is reviewing that with the loader; tuning remains paused.
6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： .