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。
OliverAli0189 · 2025年6月4日 14:14 UTC
Whoever owns the cosmetic acceptance rules should own the physical judgement. Keep the plate ID with the images, so the next person doesn't relabel a reflection just because the filename sounds certain.
1分Quality owns the rule. Engineering named the files. Neither realised the other had changed labels. We have three versions of good.
0分Stop merging those folders for now. Otherwise you'll spend the next review guessing which version of good taught the system to reject a perfectly ordinary plate.
16分Get quality to examine the physical plates, yes. But don't throw away the conflicting images. They may show a seating or lighting problem you need to reproduce
-1分Agreed on keeping the evidence, but outside the approved reference set until the labels are settled. Who will maintain that set after the commissioning people leave?
0分Quality technician has taken it on. We separated disputed pictures. The clean plate's stripe moves when it is reseated, even without moving the lamp.
6分Check the seating repeatability. Could be a tiny angle change. I can't tell from the pictures alone, but I'd compare repeated presentations of that one plate before changing thresholds
19分And use a genuinely marked plate alongside it. Making the clean one look nicer is only half the job.
7分Label the physical storage slots too. We had numbered photos and a box of loose samples. Very organised computer, very confused people.
6分Thanks, Chloe. Slots labelled now. Fixture team found the plate can sit on a small ledge instead of its intended supports. They're reviewing that before more images.
8分Did the technician finish sorting the disputed labels, or has everyone wandered into the fixture fix and left that bit hanging?
6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： .