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。
ZaraArcher0395 · 2025年9月2日 16:13 UTC
Ask quality to examine the identified bezel and locate any actual rejected mark. I'm no appearance inspector, but I wouldn't ask software to learn those labels while nobody can point to the supposed scratch on the part.
10分Quality accepted the bezel. They found a light handling rub within our appearance allowance.
7分Keep that accepted-but-rubbed example. It sounds more useful than only keeping perfect parts. You'll still need confirmed rejects, and the camera comparison has to show their real features under the presentation you intend to use.
23分Compare the original captures before changing equipment. Were those two views made with fixed lighting, or did someone move the lamp while turning the bezel?
14分Lamp fixed. Bezel hand-seated in a loose holder. Our notes did at least record that.
22分Loose how? Can it rock, or just slide sideways?
10分Zara, Anika's question is worth taking to tooling with the actual holder. A repeated image comparison needs to describe that movement, not just call every different picture a lighting problem.
8分It rocks against the rim stop. Tooling found a contact-height mismatch and is reviewing the holder.
9分New reference parts selected by quality. Holder change not tested yet. Keeping the accepted rubbed bezel too.
22分Use those same identified parts when the holder returns. Otherwise a fresh sample pile will make the before-and-after comparison harder than it needs to be.
16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： .