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。
YasminAdams0093 · 2025年9月4日 20:22 UTC
Keep the images, remove the guessed decisions, and link each view to its actual faceplate.
7分We can identify four pieces from their reverse markings, with quality reviewing them now; three other image groups cannot yet be tied to physical samples.
10分Leave those three groups out of the labelled set, then. You can keep them as examples of the confusing glare without pretending you know what the parts were.
15分Are the four identified faceplates enough to cover the intended surface variation? They may be a useful starting comparison without being a complete acceptance reference set.
12分No, Henry, they're only our first identified group; quality is selecting additional accepted and rejected examples across the finishes we expect.
12分And keep their IDs with the new captures. That's the bit that got lost before.
14分Use the original images for that comparison, not pictures pulled back out of a presentation. I found a supposed scratch edge change when I opened the source file on another faceplate job. Still had to find the actual plate afterward.
22分Oscar, we have originals for the four, and quality has now accepted two and rejected two; the shifting bright stripe appears on one accepted piece as well as a reject.
11分How did the real reject feature behave on reseating? That is the follow-up I'd like to hear, not just whether the stripe got bored and moved.
9分The faint rejected line disappears in one seating, Sofia; the fixture designer is reviewing how that faceplate rests before we collect the larger set, so tuning stays paused.
24分Include that seating in the review, along with the identified reject. It is a useful failed case against which to assess the proposed change.
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： .