Same cover in three poses, three moving bright lines labelled scratches. Physical judgement missing. Where should I start?
Which cover should quality inspect before our FR10 threshold trial?
AnilAli0201 · 2025年9月15日 16:41 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
10 条回复
回复 AnilAli0201
Identify that physical cover and ask quality to judge it against the appearance requirement. Retain the original images with their presentation details. The imaging comparison needs known samples, not a vote on which bright line looks most scratch-like.
21分Cover identified. Quality found an edge nick; decision on acceptability pending.
1分回复 AnilAli0201
Keep that nick location with the images, and wait for its disposition before calling the cover a reject reference. The moving lines may be a separate imaging problem.
22分回复 AnilAli0201
Did the cover rock, or just settle in a different position each time?
3分Settled differently. No obvious rocking during our bench check.
19分回复 AnilAli0201
Does the proposed camera view actually show that edge nick?
6分Barely. Bright centre gets most of the image. Camera team is reviewing the field of view.
23分回复 AnilAli0201
Include the whole feature location in that review. Reducing the central glare would not help much if the actual unacceptable feature is outside the useful view.
10分Quality rejected the nick. Cover retained as an identified reject; revised imaging and seating comparison still pending.
12分回复 AnilAli0201
Keep it in the comparison, even if the cleaner covers make the pictures look better.
11分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .