I have stopped using the arrows as defect references. On our retained polished covers, the bright band crosses different features after reseating. Quality has identified a real scratch elsewhere. Which examples belong in the camera comparison?
Our scratch arrows follow the reflection across the UR5e cover images
GraceArcher0407 · 2026年1月30日 20:03 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
19 条回复
Use the physical accepted cover and the scratched one, both identified. Keep the bad arrows somewhere outside the reference set so you can explain why they changed, but don't leave them where somebody can reuse them as labels
17分What happened to the original full images?
9分Don't delete all the awkward images. They show the presentations that fooled the current labelling. I'd want those in a challenge set, with corrected labels.
10分回复 BenAdams0109
Ben, agreed, but the correct label needs quality's judgement on the actual cover. We had a wrong arrow on a genuinely rejected bezel. Removing the arrow did not make the bezel acceptable.
5分Amy, full images are retained. Ben and Nora, quality calls one cover rejected for the small edge scratch, not the travelling band. The accepted cover has the band too.
16分Is that small edge scratch actually visible in your proposed camera view, Grace?
12分回复 BethChan1107
And can the loader recognise the same edge on the part? I get lost quickly when the reference picture is turned around but its caption stays the same.
12分Are the reseated examples within the intended loading variation, or was somebody tilting the cover farther for the photograph?
11分Emma's distinction matters. A deliberately tilted photo can be useful for finding a reflection, but I'd keep it separate from the conditions you expect the loader to produce
14分Our best-looking picture once showed the wrong finish. Keep the cover identity visible too.
8分Beth, the scratch is faint but visible in one view. Omar, the locating hole identifies its edge. Emma, two photos were deliberately tilted; the others came from ordinary reseating.
9分Then I'd split deliberate tilts from ordinary reseats in the comparison. Otherwise somebody will tune against an impossible loading position and call the normal ones easy.
14分Faint in one view is the awkward bit.
8分回复 BenAdams0109
We are comparing two different aims here. The ordinary reseats tell Grace whether the image stays useful during loading. The tilted images help explain why the band moved. I would retain both, but not let either stand in for seeing that edge scratch reliably.
9分Nora, that explanation I can follow. Thanks. I was treating every saved picture as another example the inspection should accept.
22分Camera engineer compared the two sets with quality. They removed the band labels and rejected the current lighting candidate because the edge scratch disappears on an ordinary reseat. No threshold trial with that candidate.
13分Did they suggest another light arrangement, or another view?
17分Another view is being considered. We have not selected it. Thanks, Emma, separating the deliberately tilted images stopped us arguing about a loading condition we do not use.
-2分Who will check that any added view still covers the locating-hole edge after a changeover?
19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： .