I'm helping with a separate UR5e faceplate lesson and the bright lines move when we reseat the part, then someone boosts contrast on the exported pictures and calls every line a scratch; can we untangle this before the camera tuning starts?
Retain the original captures and identify the physical faceplate before evaluating the altered exports. Ask quality to establish its appearance decision independently. Contrast adjustment can help viewing, but it must not create the reference definition of a defect.
Originals are still there, thankfully, and quality has accepted this faceplate apart from a handling mark they want to inspect again; I'll leave that decision open rather than call it a known reject
That wording is ambiguous. If the handling mark may make the part unacceptable, the overall decision is still pending; the remaining inspected surface can have its own recorded observations.
We're sorting out misleading presentation pictures on another job too. I'd put the original and adjusted views beside each other for the review, rather than asking people to remember which one looked harsher. Or label the adjustments clearly at least.
Side-by-side views will help explain the export change. Keep the intended operational image path in the trial as well, including any processing it will actually use, so the final comparison is not limited to an unprocessed image nobody will inspect.
The operational pipeline isn't agreed yet, so I've made that a separate item and kept the adjusted exports labelled as presentation copies; nobody is getting a new threshold out of this folder yet
Who can choose the other trial samples while this mark is being reviewed? It would be a shame to build the whole exercise around one unresolved faceplate.
Quality is choosing accepted finish variations and confirmed rejects, Toby, with this plate staying in the unresolved group; thanks, that's a better use of the lesson preparation than arguing over its brightest stripe again