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。
OliverChen1146 · 2025年4月25日 21:54 UTC
Have the acceptance owner examine the identified physical samples first; otherwise the lighting trial is being judged against labels that nobody can explain to the eventual operators.
12分Found the faceplate in the sample box, labelled reject in one bag and suspect on the part tag. Nice to have our disagreement physically archived too
22分Retain both labels in the history, but ask for one current judgement under defined viewing conditions before using that piece as a definite reject reference.
6分And the moving bright line doesn't prove the faceplate is flawless; don't turn a bad reject label into an equally casual pass.
6分Agreed; uncertainty is an appropriate outcome until the physical inspection question is settled.
23分Did the same area stay in view when you changed presentation? A pair of images with identifiable surface features would help show what moved relative to the part.
10分That comparison can inform the imaging work, provided the sample identity and physical judgement remain attached to it rather than inferred from the bright line alone.
4分Same area, yes. The line crosses a small tooling feature between images. Quality is looking at the actual part with agreed viewing conditions. I haven't called it good, just stopped calling the photo proof of a scratch
11分We had a reference folder where uncertain parts quietly became rejects after a handover. Giving uncertain samples their own status helped. Include who resolves them, or they can sit there until somebody gets impatient and relabels the lot.
14分Quality owns the suspect list now. They've supplied a small set of agreed good and bad parts for the lighting comparison. This faceplate stays suspect, so no victory lap for the lamp yet
21分Use those agreed samples when documenting the operator inspection view too, so the eventual handover explains the acceptance standard rather than merely where to look for a bright pixel.
19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： .